The association of frailty on cardiac rehabilitation goal achievement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Frailty is common among patients entering cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Frailty is associated with poor health outcomes; however, it is unclear if frailty influences achieving goals in CR. Methods We report a secondary analysis of participants who were referred to an exercise and education-based CR program from 2005 to 2015. Frailty was measured by a 25-item accumulation of deficits frailty index (FI) ranging from 0 to 1; higher scores indicate higher frailty. Participants were categorized by admission frailty levels (FI scores: < 0.20, 0.20–0.29, 0.30–0.39, > 0.40). CR goals were determined with shared decision-making between CR staff and the patients. We conducted logistic regression analyses to examine the odds of goal attainment by CR completion, adjusting for age, sex, education, marital status, and referring diagnosis. Analyses were performed using baseline frailty as a categorical and continuous outcome, and frailty change as a continuous outcome in separate models. Results Of 759 eligible participants (age: 59.5 ± 9.8, 24% female), 607 (80%) participants achieved a CR goal at graduation. CR goals were categorized into similar themes: control or lose weight ( n = 381, 50%), improve physical activity behaviour and fitness ( n = 228, 30%), and improve cardiovascular profile ( n = 150, 20%). Compared to the most severe frailty group (FI >0.40), lower levels of frailty at baseline were associated with achieving a goal at CR completion [FI < 0.20: OR = 4.733 (95% CI: 2.197, 10.194), p < .001; FI 0.20–0.29: OR = 2.116 (1.269–3.528), p = .004]. Every 1% increase in the FI was associated with a 3.5% reduction in the odds of achieving a CR goal [OR = 0.965 (0.95, 0.979), p < .001]. Participants who reduced their frailty by a minimally clinically important difference of at least 0.03 ( n = 209, 27.5%) were twice as likely to achieve their CR goal [OR = 2.111 (1.262, 3.532), p = .004] than participants who increased their frailty by at least 0.03 ( n = 82, 10.8%). Every 1% improvement in the FI from baseline to follow up was associated with a 2.7% increase in the likelihood of CR goal achievement [OR = 1.027 (1.005, 1.048), p = .014]. Conclusion Lower admission frailty was associated with a greater likelihood of achieving CR goals. Frailty improvements were associated with CR goal achievement, highlighting the influence of frailty on goal attainment.
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 | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».