Implementation of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Jordan: Perspective of Healthcare Professionals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in the management of chronic respiratory conditions are well-documented. Nonetheless, PR remains underutilized. In Jordan, the scarcity or even absence of PR denies those with respiratory conditions the opportunity to improve their health. Objective: To explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) related to the implementation of PR in Jordan. Methods: A qualitative methodology that utilized a semi-structured interview approach informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Twenty-one HCPs were interviewed. Interview transcripts were coded against the relevant TDF domain(s) and then domain summaries were generated. Results: A total of 997 quotes were coded against the TDF domains with the knowledge, environmental context and resources, social influences, and skills domains being the most coded ones. Factors that may hinder PR implementation include limited knowledge and skills, limited public awareness of PR, financial costs, lack of laws and legislations related to the establishment of PR, and the roles of HCPs within PR being confused. Factors that may facilitate PR implementation include HCPs' willingness to be involved in new programs, the perception of the importance and need of PR, and HCPs' beliefs about capabilities to overcome barriers to the implementation of PR. Conclusion: This study provides information for stakeholders and policymakers about the factors affecting PR implementation in Jordan from the perspectives of HCPs. Factors related to the implementation of PR in Jordan are multifactorial with the limited training and knowledge of PR among HCPs seeming to be the main factor to be targeted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".