Effects of the Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Program on Psychological Factors and Quality of Life among Coronary Heart Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Comprehensive Lifestyle Intervention, which integrates psychological and educational intervention, is a program to improve self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-care, body mass index and quality of life of the patients with coronary heart disease during early stages following hospitalization. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Program affecting psychological factors including self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-care, quality of life (QoL), and body mass index (BMI). This study was a quasi-experimental research with a repeated one group design. Eighty patients with coronary artery disease were recruited from either the Medicine or Surgical Ward at the Phramongkutklao Hospital where the patients joined the Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Program, which included attending exercising practice and receiving face-to-face counseling while being admitted to the hospital. Telephone counseling was thereafter performed one week after being discharged from the hospital, followed by undergoing individual or group counseling at the Cardiac Rehabilitation Clinic the following week. The follow-up period was performed within six weeks after hospitalization. Data was collected on two occasions before discharging from the hospital (pretest) and six weeks after (post-test) by using the self-efficacy, self-regulation, and self-care questionnaires, as well as the Short Form(SF) -36 (Thai version). The results indicated that by six weeks, 50%, 58.80%, 46.20%, and 72.50% of patients, respectively, had experienced increases with self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-care, and quality of life scores, while 12.50% of patients had decreased their body mass index in comparison with the pretest score. From the paired t-test, the self-efficacy, self-regulation and quality of life scores were statistically significant, having increased to the p<0.01 level; self-care was statistically significant, having increased to the p<0.05 level along with body mass index, which was statistically significant having experienced a decrease to the p<0.01 level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".