Comparison of the Impact of Conventional and Web-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation on Physical Activity in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Exploratory Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) increases exercise capacity, with less clear evidence regarding physical activity (PA). The World Health Organization recommends at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic PA per week to reduce the risks of chronic disease. Objective The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of conventional PR versus web-based PR with respect to changes in PA. Methods Patients with COPD were randomized to either conventional PR classes (n=51) or a web-based PR program (n=52) for 7 weeks in a feasibility study. Accelerometers (Sensewear) were worn before and after the intervention, and PA was measured as steps per day and mean bouts of moderate activity for ≥2, ≥5, ≥10, and ≥20 minutes. Measures were derived for patients with ≥8 hours of data per day for ≥4 days, using the R package for statistical analysis. Variables were explored to examine their relationships with bouts of activity. Results Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. Complete PA data were available for the groups receiving web-based (n=20) and conventional (n=34) PR interventions. The web-based PR group demonstrated a nonsignificant increase in the number of steps per day, which mainly comprised short bouts of moderate to vigorous intensity PA when compared to the conventional PR group (P=.20). The conventional PR group demonstrated increased 20-minute bouts of PA by 49.1%, although this was not significant (P=.07). At baseline, age (r=–0.21, P=.04), BMI (r=–0.311, P=.004), and FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second; % predicted; r=–0.248, P=.048) were significantly correlated with 10-minute bouts of PA; however, this was not observed post intervention. Conclusions The analysis revealed a nonsignificant difference in the pattern of PA between groups receiving conventional vs web-based PR—the former being associated with an increase in 20-minute bouts, while the latter having demonstrated an increase in the number of steps per day. There appears to be a differing response emerging between the two interventions. Trial Registration International Clinical Trials Registry ISRCTN03142263; https://tinyurl.com/y4dmfyrb
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".