Perceptions and beliefs associated with enrolling in pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is ongoing interest in the factors that influence those referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to accept enrollment. We conducted semi-structured interviews informed by the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) framework with 11 individuals with chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) referred to a PR program. Content analysis was performed. Eleven individuals participated [accept PR (n=10), decline PR (n=1); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=5), interstitial lung disease (n=6); female (n=5), median age = 72 (Q1 63.5-Q3 75.0]. Four main themes and 13 sub-themes were identified: 1) communication (healthcare professional communication, loved one’s communication, interaction with others and own research), 2) extrinsic factors (logistics and accountability), 3) psychosocial factors (capabilities, emotions, outcome expectations and risk perception), and 4) past experiences (exercise, knowledge and symptoms) (table 1). Participants perceived their enrolment in PR to be impacted by: information they acquired from sources other than their health providers, logistics associated with accessing PR, their current capabilities, the belief PR was their last hope for improvement and their past experiences and knowledge about exercise and symptoms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".