A Home-Based Interdisciplinary Intervention to Enhance Functionality in Oncology Patients: Results from a Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Dyspnoea and functional decline are common among cancer patients with associated respiratory conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an Effort Re-education Programme (ERP) in improving functionality and quality of life in hospitalised oncology patients compared to Conventional Clinical Practice (CCP). Methods: A stratified, randomised, prospective clinical trial was conducted involving 65 patients with cancer and associated respiratory conditions. Participants were assigned to either a control group (CCP) or an experimental group (ERP + CCP). Functionality (Barthel Index), health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), overall performance (Karnofsky Scale), and instrumental activities of daily living (Lawton and Brody Scale) were assessed at baseline and one month post-discharge. Results: The ERP group showed significantly greater improvements in all outcome measures: Barthel Index (mean change: +18.33 vs. +6.19), EORTC QLQ-C30 (+16.4 vs. +6.6), Karnofsky (+18.75 vs. +5.6), and Lawton–Brody (+2.78 vs. +0.78), all with p < 0.001 and moderate-to-large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.72–1.19). No readmissions were reported in the ERP group, versus 37.5% in the control group. Conclusions: The ERP significantly improves basic and instrumental functionality, autonomy, and health-related quality of life in oncology patients with respiratory conditions. These findings support the integration of Functional Re-education Programmes into routine clinical practice as a complement to standard care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".