Virtual pulmonary rehabilitation in Canada: A national survey of programs during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Pandemic related restrictions resulted in a shift from in-person care to virtual care in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs across Canada. The extent and effects of this transformation are understudied.Objectives This study aimed to characterize virtual pulmonary rehabilitation (VPR) in Canada and summarize implementation changes since the pandemic.Methods A national, cross-sectional, self-administered electronic survey was conducted between September and December 2023. Programs were identified through the public domain and national and provincial respiratory associations.Main Results A total of 184 PR program representatives were contacted: 114 were eligible to participate in the survey; of which 70 individuals representing 65 unique programs responded to the survey. A total of 71% of programs reported offering virtual care for PR assessment and/or treatment. More than 75% of programs used a hybrid approach for PR (eg, a combination of virtual and in-person care). Few programs used virtual care for pre/post assessments of exercise capacity and functional strength. Considerations for VPR included: assessing patient eligibility, emergency planning, implementation barriers and key resources. In the future, 69% of programs anticipated offering VPR, primarily using hybrid models of care.Conclusions This survey provides insight into virtual care used by programs across Canada during the pandemic, highlighting considerations and plans for PR delivery in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".