Short-Term Health Outcomes of a Structured Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program Implemented Within Rural Canadian Sites Compared With an Established Urban Site: A Pre-Post Intervention Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate congruence in program delivery and short-term health outcomes of a structured pulmonary rehabilitation (S-PR) program implemented at 11 Canadian rural pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) sites compared with an urban reference site. DESIGN: Multi-center, pre- and post-intervention, comparative, observational study. SETTING: Eleven rural Canadian PR sites and 1 urban reference PR site. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) referred to PR. INTERVENTION: Clinicians at the reference site worked with local clinicians to implement the S-PR program in rural sites. A PR survey evaluated site congruence with the S-PR components, with congruence defined as delivering program components ≥80% in alignment with the S-PR program. Participants were enrolled in 16 sessions of group education and supervised exercise, offered twice or thrice a week. Health outcomes were tracked using a quality assurance database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcomes were congruence in program delivery and changes in the 6-minute walk (6MW) distance and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). RESULTS: A total of 555 participants (rural n=204 and reference n=351) were included in the analyses. There was congruence in exercise and group education; however, individual education varied. Following the S-PR program, 6MW distance increased, with greater changes observed at rural sites (51±67 m at rural sites vs 30±46 m at the reference site). CAT score was reduced by -2.6±5.4 points with no difference between reference and rural sites. Changes in 6MW distance and CAT scores were similar for participants at sites that were congruent vs noncongruent with the individual education component, and similar for patients with COPD, asthma, bronchiectasis, and interstitial lung disease. CONCLUSION: The S-PR program components can be implemented with good congruence in Canadian rural settings, resulting in similar short-term health outcomes as in an established urban site and across CRDs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".