Experiences and perceptions of receiving and prescribing rehabilitation in adults with cystic fibrosis undergoing lung transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation is prescribed to optimize fitness before lung transplantation (LTx) and facilitate post-transplant recovery. Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) may experience unique health issues that impact participation. METHODS: Patient and healthcare provider semi-structured interviews were administered to explore perceptions and experiences of rehabilitation before and after LTx in adults with CF. Interviews were analyzed via inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven participants were interviewed between February and October 2021 (five patients, median 28 (IQR 27-29) years, one awaiting re-LTx, four following first or second LTx) and six healthcare providers. Rehabilitation was delivered both in-person and virtually using a remote monitoring App. Six key themes emerged: (i) structured exercise benefits both physical and mental health, (ii) CF-specific physiological impairments were a large barrier, (iii) supportive in-person or virtual relationships facilitated participation, (iv) CF-specific evidence and resources are needed, (v) tele-rehabilitation experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in preferences for a hybrid model and (vi) virtual platforms and clinical workflows require further optimization. There was good engagement with remote data entry alongside satisfaction with virtual support. CONCLUSIONS: Structured rehabilitation provided multiple benefits and a hybrid model was preferred going forward. Future optimization of tele-rehabilitation processes and increased evidence to support exercise along the continuum of CF care are needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".