Implementation and maintenance of an enhanced pulmonary rehabilitation program in a single centre: An implementation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has major benefits for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An enhanced PR program was developed with a self-management education intervention. The objective of our study was to evaluate the implementation of the enhanced PR program into a single centre.MethodsPre-post implementation study consisted of two evaluation periods: immediately after implementation and 18 months later. Guided by the RE-AIM framework, outcomes included: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance.ResultsReach: 70–75% of referred patients agreed to a PR program (n = 26). Effectiveness: Clinically important improvements occurred in some patients in functional exercise capacity (64% of the patients achieved clinical important difference in 6-min walk test in the first evaluation period and 44% in the second evaluation period), knowledge, functional status, and self-efficacy in both evaluation periods. Adoption: All healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in PR (n = 8) participated. Implementation: Fidelity for the group education sessions ranged from 76 to 95% (first evaluation) and from 82 to 88% (second evaluation). Maintenance: The program was sustained over 18 months with minor changes. Patients and HCPs were highly satisfied with the program.ConclusionsThe enhanced PR program was accepted by patients and HCPs and was implemented and maintained at a single expert center with good implementation fidelity.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".