Effects of Pulmonary Rehabilitation with Occupational Therapy on Occupational Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims 1) Explore occupational challenges of individuals participating in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), and 2) examine impacts of occupational therapy, embedded within PR, on performance of, satisfaction with, dyspnea in and experience of challenging occupations.Methods A mixed methods cohort study recruited adults from a 8-week community-based PR program which incorporated targeted occupational therapy. Participant perspectives of the occupational therapy were explored using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Modified Borg Dyspnea Scale.Results Seventeen participants with either Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Bronchiectasis, or Interstitial Lung Disease were recruited (age 71 ± 7(SD) identifying 269 problematic occupations. Nine participants completed the program obtaining clinically and statistically significant improvements in COPM performance, satisfaction scores and Modified Borg Dyspnea Scale, maintained at 12 wk, and validated through participants reporting they ‘now do things differently’.Conclusion People with chronic respiratory conditions are occupational beings. Occupational therapy embedded within PR can influence participants’ engagement in challenging occupations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".