Occupational therapy in pulmonary rehabilitation programs: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with chronic respiratory diseases present several physical, psychological and social impairments that contribute to decrease their ability to perform activities of daily living and compromise their independence. Occupational therapy (OT) has been designated as part of the rehabilitation process for disabled individuals with the aim of providing them maximal function and independence to sustain activities of daily living and to improve their ability to cope with working and social behaviours. Thus, OT is strictly linked with the individual’s autonomy, both to manage deficient activities and prevent any further deterioration. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is currently a core component of the management of people with chronic respiratory diseases. While it is widely accepted that PR should be implemented by an interdisciplinary team, less than 40% of PR programs in Canada report having an OT in the team and it is not clear from national and international reports and guidelines what their role and their added value to patients’ outcomes. Thus, the aims of this scoping review is to explore the role of occupational therapy (OT) in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs, the current guidelines for including OT in PR programs, and the estimated prevalence and reported or anticipated effects of OT interventions in PR programs.
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 | 0.058 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.012 |
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".