A feasibility pragmatic clinical trial of a primary care network exercise and education program for people with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of chronic disease management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and has been shown to improve shortness of breath, exercise capacity, quality of life, and decrease hospitalizations. However, pulmonary rehabilitation capacity is low. Primary care may be an effective method for delivering disease management services to this population. The objective of this feasibility pragmatic clinical trial was to evaluate enrollment and completion of a primary care network exercise and education program for people with COPD. Methods COPD patients (N = 23; mean age = 65 ± 9 years; FEV1 = 68 ± 20% predicted) were recruited after referral to a primary care network exercise program in Edmonton, Alberta. Participants self-selected either an 8-week 16-session supervised exercise program or an 8-week unsupervised exercise program where they received three visits with an exercise specialist. Both groups self-selected education sessions with clinicians for disease management support. Referrals, completion, and program outcomes (physical activity, exercise capacity and health status) were measured before (T1), immediately after (T2), and 8 weeks following the program (T3). Results Forty-three referrals were received in 10 months, where a minimum of 50 was required in order for the program to be considered feasible. Twenty-three participants provided baseline data, and twenty participants started the exercise program (10 in each exercise group), 16 of which completed the exercise program (80%). On average, 48% of the recommended education sessions were completed by participants. Conclusions Enrollment into a COPD exercise and education program in a primary care network was low indicating the need for improved referral processes from physicians. Completion rates by participants were adequate for exercise but not education. The low referral rate and the lack of enrollment in COPD education by the patients indicate that a large-scale trial of the program as designed is not feasible.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".