Use of telerehabilitation platforms for delivering patient education among patients with asthma: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: patient education (PE). This review aims to summarize the types of telerehabilitation modalities, dosage, and outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of PE among people with asthma. METHODS: We adopted a scoping review methodology. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the data. The Preferred Reporting System for Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was followed during the review process. RESULTS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched, with 34 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Results are presented in three themes: telerehabilitation platforms used to deliver PE among patients with asthma; content, duration, and frequency of the PE administered; and patient-reported outcome measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PE. CONCLUSION: This scoping study detailed the types of telerehabilitation modalities, dosage, and outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of PE in people with asthma. This review will be especially beneficial to those considering where additional research or implementation of telerehabilitation for asthma patients is required. The studies emphasized the involvement of several healthcare experts, emphasizing the significance of a multidisciplinary approach to efficient PE delivery and possible improvements in asthma management through telerehabilitation. Although a range of telerehabilitation platforms were generally accepted, hybrid models that integrate online and in-person sessions could further enhance patient satisfaction and quality-of-life. Comprehensive economic analyses are also required, and solving technology issues is essential to maximizing the efficacy of these initiatives.
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 | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".