A realist study of the mechanisms of cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper is to report patients' experiences of cardiac rehabilitation and perceptions of the mechanisms and contexts influencing its long-term effectiveness. BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation programmes for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease are common. The effects of these programmes, however, can be inconsistent and little is known of the personal and contextual factors that influence service effectiveness. METHOD: Forty-seven participants with a formal diagnosis of coronary heart disease who had attended a programme of cardiac rehabilitation in Scotland 3 years previously were included in focus groups to discuss their perceptions and experiences (30 males and 17 females). The data were generated in 2002 and analysed using the realist approach of Pawson and Tilley (1997). RESULTS: Participants' accounts indicated that the didactic content of cardiac rehabilitation was not strongly linked to longer-term health behaviour change. The main positive effects of cardiac rehabilitation were related to the effect of participation on mediating social and body-focused mechanisms that were triggered when the rehabilitation setting was perceived to be safe. Social mechanisms identified included social comparisons, camaraderie, and social capital. Body-focused mechanisms included greater knowledge of personal physical boundaries and a greater trust in the heart-diseased body. Collectively, these mechanisms had a positive effect on confidence that was perceived as being imperative to maintain health behaviour change. CONCLUSIONS: More support is required to promote health behaviour change after the completion of cardiac rehabilitation. Use of community-based exercise services and conventional or web-based support groups for coronary heart disease patients should be encouraged, as these appear to extend the positive health effects of the mechanisms that promote behaviour change. At the completion of cardiac rehabilitation programmes, patients should be referred to safe and appropriate community-based exercise services. Further research is needed to examine the effects on health outcomes of mechanisms and contexts related to cardiac rehabilitation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".