Understanding the Landscape: Promoting Health for Rural Individuals After Tertiary Level Cardiac Revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to describe the needs and experiences of rural individuals commuting to an urban center for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Data were analyzed from a "Patient Adherence and Satisfaction Survey" conducted by telephone as part of a quality improvement focus, and supplemented with in-depth semi-structured interviews with rural patients following PCI. FINDINGS: Both urban and rural patients after PCI experienced few complications, had made some attempts to reduce tobacco usage, and were highly satisfied with explanations of their treatment and their overall treatment experience. Patients in rural settings were more likely to experience chest pain at least rarely following their surgery than people in urban settings (P < .05). Data on participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) showed no significant differences between urban and rural dwellers. Four themes emerged from the interviews: standards of care during treatment; transportation; local resources and community support; and lifestyle changes. Although patients were highly satisfied with standards of care during acute treatment, there were unmet needs in relation to transportation and lifestyle changes. CONCLUSION: Transitions between rural communities and urban centers and rural adaptations of secondary prevention programs require more attention in health service delivery. Further research is required to better understand potential variations in chest pain patterns between urban and rural residents.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".