Eligibility, Enrollment, and Completion of Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Following Stroke Rehabilitation: What Are the Barriers?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: People after stroke benefit from comprehensive secondary prevention programs including cardiac rehabilitation (CR), yet there is little understanding of eligibility for exercise and barriers to use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine eligibility for CR; enrollment, adherence, and completion; and factors affecting use. DESIGN: This was a prospective study of 116 consecutive people enrolled in a single outpatient stroke rehabilitation (OSR) program located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by treating physical therapists for consecutive participants receiving OSR and included reasons for CR ineligibility, reasons for declining participation, demographics, and functional level. CR eligibility criteria included the ability to walk ≥100 m (no time restriction) and the ability to exercise at home independently or with assistance. People with or without hemiplegic gait were eligible for adapted or traditional CR, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine factors associated with use indicators. RESULTS: Of 116 participants receiving OSR, 82 (70.7%) were eligible for CR; 2 became eligible later. Sixty (71.4%) enrolled in CR and 49 (81.7%) completed CR, attending 87.1% (SD = 16.6%) of prescribed sessions. The primary reasons for ineligibility included being nonambulatory or having poor ambulation (52.9%; 18/34 patients) and having severe cognitive deficits and no home exercise support (20.6%; 7/34). Frequently cited reasons for declining CR were moving or travel out of country (17.2%; 5/29 reasons), lack of interest (13.8%; 4/29), transportation issues (10.3%; 3/29), and desiring a break from therapy (10.3%; 3/29). In a multivariate analysis, people who declined CR were more likely to be women, have poorer attendance at OSR, and not diabetic. Compared with traditional CR, stroke-adapted CR resulted in superior attendance (66.1% [SD = 22.9%] vs 87.1% [SD = 16.6%], respectively) and completion (66.7% vs 89.7%, respectively). The primary reasons for dropping out were medical (45%) and moving (27%). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability to other programs is limited, and other, unmeasured factors may have affected outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: An OSR-CR partnership provided an effective continuum of care, with approximately 75% of eligible people participating and more than 80% completing. However, just over 1 of 4 eligible people declined participation; therefore, strategies should target lack of interest, transportation, women, and people without diabetes. An alternative program model is needed for people who have severe ambulatory or cognitive deficits and no home exercise support.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».