Variation in Patient Perceptions of Healthcare Provider Endorsement of Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is significantly underutilized. However, physician endorsement promotes greater patient utilization. This study examined perceptions of provider endorsement by patients (1) of sociodemographic groups who are often less represented in CR and by clinical indication and (2) by type of healthcare provider and place of referral. METHODS: Referred cardiac (N = 1156) inpatients from 11 hospitals across Ontario completed a sociodemographic survey inhospital and a mailed followup survey 1 year later. Respondents self-reported perceived healthcare provider endorsement of CR on a 5-point Likert scale, type of referring healthcare provider, and where the referral was initiated. RESULTS: The overall perceived strength of healthcare provider endorsement to CR was 3.75 ± 1.15. Patients who perceived greater endorsement were significantly more likely to enrol (OR = 2.07) and attend a greater percentage of CR sessions (P < .001). Student t tests showed that women (P < .01), those older than 65 years (P < .01), with lower annual family income (P < .001), less than high school education (P < .01), who were retired (P < .01), or had lower subjective social status (P < .01) reported significantly lower perceived healthcare provider endorsement of CR than their respective counterparts. Perception of CR endorsement did not differ significantly on the basis of location of referral initiation (P ≥ .05), but those who discussed CR with family doctors (P < .05), cardiologists (P < .05), or cardiac surgeons (P < .01) reported significantly greater endorsement than those discussing CR with nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Given the proven benefits of CR, all healthcare providers are recommended to universally and strongly encourage CR participation among their patients in order to optimize utilization and subsequent recovery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".