Cardiac rehabilitation centers in Romania: Where are we now?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: In 2024, Romania is still facing a critical challenge with high cardiovascular disease mortality rates despite extensive research and policy initiatives. Our study sought to examine the actual state of cardiac rehabilitation in Romania by identifying the healthcare facilities that provide and deliver cardiac rehabilitation services. Methods: The research began with a comprehensive investigation into cardiac rehabilitation centers across Romania. This involved leveraging search engines to identify these facilities. Keywords like “cardiac rehabilitation”, “cardiovascular rehabilitation”, and “cardiac rehabilitation centers” were instrumental in pinpointing relevant information, which included names, geographical locations, and contact details of the centers. Upon identification of potential centers, our research team initiated direct engagement with these facilities via telephonic interviews. Results: The data collected in 2024 was compared to previous findings from a 2017 research report to evaluate the progress and impact of prevention efforts over time. While the number of cardiac rehabilitation centers has grown (69.2% increase in the nationwide count of cardiac rehabilitation centers/facilities), an uneven geographic distribution persists, exacerbated by disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the cardiac rehabilitation centers identified, 23% are located in balneoclimatic resorts, but the majority of cardiac rehabilitation centers are located in Bucharest. Overall, 65.3% of all identified centers in Romania belong to the private healthcare sector. Among these private centers, 41.1% offer cardiac rehabilitation programs as continuous inpatient care, with durations ranging from 5 to 16 days. All cardiac rehabilitation centers are equipped with the necessary equipment to perform basic cardiological investigations as well as physio-kinesiological rehabilitative procedures, in addition to aerobic physical training (53.8%). In 33.3% of the identified centers, diabetologists and psychologists/psychotherapists are integral members of the multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation team, while only 19.2% of the centers include a dietitian/nutritionist. Regarding costs, there is significant variation depending on the geographical area. In Bucharest, a single rehabilitation session costs between 100 to 400 lei (20 to 80 €), and a rehabilitation program spanning 4-6 weeks can cost up to 3350 lei. Comparing costs identified in 2017, we have observed an increase ranging from 47% to 188% in 2024. Conclusions: Despite an increase in the number of cardiac rehabilitation centers, their prevalence remains inadequate to fulfill the demands of the population. Telerehabilitation emerges as a promising solution, with limited adoption in only one center. Cost variations across regions pose a barrier to patient participation. Our article proposes strategies including decision algorithms for personalized recommendations, expanding cardiac rehabilitation centers, and advocating for comprehensive cost reimbursement. The urgent need for collaborative efforts is emphasized, envisioning innovative solutions like mobile applications to foster a sense of community and optimize cardiac rehabilitation, ultimately improving cardiovascular health outcomes in Romania. Keywords: cardiac rehabilitation, telerehabilitation, cardiac rehabilitation centers, healthcare disparities, cardiovascular health
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».