Priorities in Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research: The Patient Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to elicit patients’ views of research priorities related to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Method:We used a modified nominal group technique in which participants with chronic lung conditions who had completed PR attended one of five meetings during which they generated ideas, discussed them with the group, and prioritized their top three topics. Afterward, they completed member checking and satisfaction questionnaires. Results:Fourteen participants (mean age 71 years) prioritized 25 topics, which included music as a motivator, education about the reason for various assessments and exercises, and ongoing patient assessment and follow-up. Most participants “totally agreed” that the summarized topics matched what they thought was important in PR research (75%) and that the meeting was a positive experience (100%). Participants indicated that the findings of this study accurately reflected their priorities. Conclusions:Individuals who have completed PR may have questions about programme components including assessment, treatment, and strategies for promoting motivation. To inform future research projects and identify knowledge translation needs, we will distribute a questionnaire to a larger sample of former PR patients to further prioritize the 25 topics identified in the meetings.
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 | 0.063 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".