Comparison Between Effects of Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs Versus Usual Care on the Patients’ Health Related Quality of Life After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIM: To compare home-based cardiac rehabilitation with usual care on the patients' Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) after coronary artery bypass graft in patients with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: In a randomized controlled clinical conducted from March 2013 to June 2013, 110 patients with CABG surgery were randomly assigned into two groups. While patients in group I, were received usual care and patients in group II, in addition to the usual care were received home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs. The 27-item MacNew Heart Disease HRQoL questionnaire was used to evaluate the patient's HRQoL under and over 2 months after intervention. RESULTS: At the time of 0, mean score of HRQoL was 67.86±7.5 and 64.76±8.4 in patients in group I and group II, respectively (P> 0.05). Although mean score of HRQoL in all patients in both groups increased two month after intervention, but this increase in patients in group II were higher than patients in group I (154.93±4.6 vs 134.20±8.2). This difference were statistically significant (P< 0.05). CONCLUSION: Quality of Life (QoL) can be considered as a quality indicator of health care systems. Results of present study showed that home-based cardiac rehabilitation program improved patients HRQoL after CABG surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".