An Investigation of the Benefits of Stress Management Within a Cardiac Rehabilitation Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: Research describing whether stress management can improve clinical outcomes for patients in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has yielded equivocal findings. METHODS: The present investigation retrospectively examined the incremental impact of exercise and stress management (n = 188), relative to exercise only (n = 1389), on psychosocial and physical health outcomes following a 12-week CR program. RESULTS: Participation in stress management and exercise was associated with greater reductions in waist circumference and systolic blood pressure, relative to exercise alone, for patients with baseline clinical elevations on these measures. The stress management group had more depressive symptoms (as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; t[1] = 3.81, P < .001) and lower physical quality of life (as measured by the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component; t[1] = 3.00, P = .003) than the exercise-only group at baseline, but there were no differences between the groups at 12 weeks in terms of depressive symptoms (t[1] = 1.74, P = .082) or physical quality of life (t[1] = 1.56, P = .120). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that stress management may offer additional benefits in selected patients over and above exercise in CR. This study retrospectively evaluated the impact of exercise and stress management relative to exercise on health following cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Stress management was associated with greater reductions in waist circumference and systolic blood pressure for patients with clinical elevations on these measures, suggesting additional benefits of stress management in CR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".