Impact of telephone follow-up on COPD outcomes in pulmonary rehabilitation patients: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The educational component is a comprehensive part of Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR), and telephone follow-up (TFU) is an alternative to reinforce face-to-face education. The objective was to determine the effect of telephone follow-up on educational needs, dyspnea, quality of life and functional capacity in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients undergoing PR. Methods Double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial in patients with COPD in a PR program in Cali-Colombia, allocation by randomization tables. All patients received 24 sessions of PR, which included face-to-face education sessions. In addition, the experimental group received telephone calls twice a week to reinforce the face-to-face educational content. The Lung Information Needs Questionnaire (LINQ) was used to measure disease knowledge, the Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire to measure quality of life, the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale to measure dyspnea, and the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) to measure functional capacity. Results Thirty-four patients were randomized and 31 were analyzed. PR group with conventional education (PRTE) n =15 and PR group with education plus telephone follow-up (PRTETFU) n =16. Significant improvement from baseline to endpoint in both groups: LINQ (PRTE 4±1.1, p =0.003, PRTETFU 5.8±10.6, p =0.000), mMRC (PRTE 1.6±0.3, p =0.000, PRTETFU 0.6±0.3, p =0.036) and functional capacity (PM6M: PRTE 45.9m±16.1, p =0.013, PRTETFU 62.8m±21.4, p =0.010). Analysis showed differences between groups for changes in LINQ knowledge domain after intervention, with greater improvement for PRTETFU ( p =0.018). Discussion The TFU is an alternative to reinforce the education. This study demonstrated greater positive effects for the autonomous management of the pathology. Conclusion Adding educational reinforcement through phone calls to patients with COPD during PR leads to improved knowledge and skills for managing the disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".