Barriers and enablers to physical activity in ILD: patients’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with interstitial lung disease (ILD) present lower levels of physical activity (PA), which further increases morbidity and mortality risks. Improving our knowledge about barriers and enablers to PA from patients’ own perspectives may allow the development of person-centred interventions, ultimately improving their quality of life. Thus, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of individuals with ILD about barriers and enablers to PA. A qualitative study nested in a larger trial evaluating the effects of a home-based physical activity programme (iLiFE – Lifestyle Integrated Functional Exercise for people with interstitial lung disease ( NCT04224233 ) was conducted. Semi-structured interviews with people with ILD were conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed in full and analysed by deductive thematic analysis. Eleven patients (6♀, 76±10 years; FVC%p 75.5±14.2, DLCO%p 43.2±20) participated. Three themes and 14 subthemes emerged: PA (self-perception, daily activities, impacts), challenges to PA (lack of motivation, weather, health status, societal stigma) and expectations & thoughts about the iLiFE (get better & live longer, wanting to know more, contributing to the future, support from others, design, willingness to improve) (Fig. 1). The identified barriers and enablers provide a basis for developing meaningful person-centred interventions to enhance PA levels in people with ILD. erj;64/suppl_68/OA3691/F1 F1 F1
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".