Dyspnea, Care Dependency, and Frailty in Older Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Correlational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: As chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) progresses, older adults have an increased symptom burden, including severe dyspnea. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between dyspnea, care dependency, and frailty in older adults with COPD. Methods: The current study was a descriptive-correlational study. One hundred and five participants were included. Data were collected face-to-face using the Dyspnea-12 Scale, Care Dependency Scale, and Edmonton Frailty Scale. Correlation and regression analysis were performed. Results: The median score for dyspnea was 24 (moderate to high), 61 (low) for care dependency, and 10 (moderate) for frailty. Age (β=0.171, p=.013), COPD stage (β=0.465, p<.001), and income status (β=0.907, p=.049) were the predictors of dyspnea and explained 67.1% of the variance. Age (β=-0.43, p<.001), COPD stage (β = 0.506, p<0.001), and income status (β=- 0.147, p<.001) were also identified as the predictors of care dependency. Besides age and COPD stage, educational status (β=0.172, p<.049) were the predictors of frailty. Conclusions: This study implied that older adults who had advanced stage COPD, were lower educated, had low-income levels, and comorbidities perceived higher care dependency and frailty. Nurses should assess both dyspnea and care dependency to identify older adults with COPD at risk for increased frailty. Studies considering COPD stage, education level, income status, and comorbidities on dyspnea management, and alleviating care dependency and frailty are warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".