Anatomy of a Failure: A Retrospective Evaluation of a Cognitive Bias Modification Intervention to Promote Physical Activity in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objectives Promoting regular physical activity (PA) is essential in cardiac rehabilitation; yet many patients exhibit low levels of PA. In January 2022, the Improving Physical Activity (IMPACT) trial, a randomised controlled trial at the University Hospital of Geneva, was launched to promote PA in cardiac patients by targeting automatic approach tendencies towards exercise-related stimuli through a cognitive bias modification (CBM) intervention. This article examines the limited acceptance of this intervention, identifies potential barriers, and proposes strategies to improve future implementations. Design Retrospective evaluation of a pre-registered clinical trial. Setting The intervention was conducted in a cardiac rehabilitation centre in Switzerland. Participants. Sixty-eight cardiac rehabilitation patients ( M age = 57.76, SD = 10.76 years, 87% male). Intervention Patients received 12 CBM sessions over 6 weeks, designed to target approach-avoidance tendencies to exercise-related stimuli and improve PA levels. Primary and secondary outcome measures Acceptance was assessed using behavioural (e.g., enrolment and engagement rates), cognitive (e.g., perceived effectiveness), and emotional (e.g., affective evaluation) indicators. The cognitive and emotional indicators were derived from verbal feedback documented by the research assistants based on patients’ reactions during the intervention period. These observations do not constitute qualitative research as defined by methodological standards; they were informal notes provided by RAs during intervention delivery and were not collected or analysed using qualitative research methods. Results Of the 352 patients initially required, only 68 (19%) were enrolled. Among these 68, 63% completed the minimum number of CBM sessions, and 25% completed accelerometer-based PA measures during the week following discharge. These behavioural indicators of low acceptance showed cognitive (e.g., scepticism about the task relevance and perceived effectiveness of the intervention) and emotional (e.g., feelings of boredom and disinterest) barriers. Conclusion The low engagement and acceptance observed in the IMPACT trial reveal highlight several key barriers, such as perceived task irrelevance, task monotony, and task boredom, that undermine the acceptance and feasibility of this digital CBM intervention in cardiac rehabilitation. These findings emphasise the importance of designing patient-centred interventions, ensuring their seamless integration into clinical contexts, and conducting qualitative research prior to implementation to anticipate potential barriers. Strengths and limitations of this study This study uses a multidimensional assessment of acceptance by examining behavioural, cognitive, and emotional indicators of a cognitive-bias modification intervention. Including informal verbal feedback from research assistants (RAs) offer valuable insights into patients’ experience and perception of the intervention in a real-world cardiac rehabilitation setting. Acceptance was assessed primarily through RAs’ verbal feedback collected during intervention delivery, rather than direct patients’ reports or standardised measures, which may introduce recall bias and limit the reliability of the findings.
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 | 0,019 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».