Embedding a Behavior Change Program Designed to Reduce Sedentary Time Within a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program Is Feasible in People With COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the feasibility of embedding a 4-wk intervention, which sought to reduce sedentary time (SED), into a pulmonary rehabilitation program (PRP) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: This was an intervention study that comprised one face-to-face session and three follow-up visits. Primary outcomes related to feasibility and included adherence to data completion undertaken before and during the intervention period, participant satisfaction with the intervention (out of 100%), and participant achievement of intervention goals. Secondary outcomes, collected before and after the intervention period, included SED and daily step count. RESULTS: Of 28 eligible individuals approached to participate, 21 (75%) were enrolled and 19 (90%) completed the program (13 females; age 69.1 ± 8.7 yr). Sixteen participants (84%) were adherent to wearing a physical activity monitor before and during the intervention period. The satisfaction score was 90 ± 12%. Over the intervention period, a total of 73 intervention goals were set, of which 41 (56%) were achieved. The effect of the intervention on SED was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding this intervention in a PRP appears to be feasible; however, its impact on SED should be further evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".