Perceptions and Beliefs Associated with Enrolling in Pulmonary Rehabilitation in People With Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the reasons people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) accept enrolment in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) using a framework of health behaviour change, to ascertain which motivational processes resulted in the intention to enrol in PR. Method: Semi-structured interviews informed by the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) framework were conducted with individuals with CRD who were referred to for PR. Content analysis was performed. Results: = 5], median age 72 [range, min-max, 35-84 y] completed the interviews. Four themes were identified: (1) communication, (2) extrinsic factors, (3) psychosocial factors, and (4) past experiences. Conclusions: Participants perceived enrolment in PR to be impacted by the information acquired from sources in addition to their health care providers, logistics associated with accessing PR, perception of their current capabilities, the belief that PR was their last resource for improvement and past experiences regarding knowledge about exercise and symptoms. To increase enrolment in PR programmes, health care providers should prioritize effective communication, address concerns and misconceptions, consider accessibility, and understand/address psychosocial factors such as motivation and belief systems.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".