Lifestyle integrated functional exercise for people with interstitial lung disease (iLiFE): A mixed-methods feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with interstitial lung disease (ILD) present low levels of physical activity (PA) and spend most of their time at home, especially in advanced stages of the disease. The Lifestyle Integrated Functional Exercise for people with ILD (iLiFE) embedding PA in patients' daily routines was developed and implemented. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the feasibility of iLiFE. METHODS: A pre/post mixed-methods feasibility study was conducted. Feasibility of iLiFE was determined by participant recruitment/retention, adherence, feasibility of outcome measures and adverse events. Measures of PA, sedentary behaviour, balance, muscle strength, functional performance/capacity, exercise capacity, impact of the disease, symptoms (i.e., dyspnoea, anxiety, depression, fatigue and cough) and health-related quality of life were collected at baseline and post-intervention (12-weeks). Semi-structured interviews with participants were conducted in-person immediately after iLiFE. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed by deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten participants (5♀, 77±3y; FVCpp 77.1 ± 4.4, DLCOpp 42.4 ± 6.6) were included, but only nine completed the study. Recruitment was challenging (30%) and retention high (90%). iLiFE was feasible, with excellent adherence (84.4%) and no adverse events. Missing data were associated with one dropout and non-compliance with the accelerometer (n = 1). Participants reported that iLiFE contributed to (re)gain control in their daily life, namely through improving their well-being, functional status and motivation. Weather, symptoms, physical impairments and lack of motivation were identified as threats to keep an active lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS: iLiFE seems to be feasible, safe and meaningful for people with ILD. A randomised controlled trial is needed to strengthen these promising findings.
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 | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".