A secondary meta‐synthesis of qualitative studies of gender and access to cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To discuss issues in the theorization and study of gender observed during a qualitative meta-synthesis of influences on uptake of secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation services. BACKGROUND: Women and men can equally benefit from secondary prevention/cardiac rehabilitation and there is a need to understand gender barriers to uptake. DESIGN: Meta-method analysis secondary to meta-synthesis. For the meta-synthesis, a systematic search was performed to identify and retrieve studies published as full papers during or after 1995 and contained: a qualitative research component wholly or in a mixed method design, extractable population specific data or themes for referral to secondary prevention programmes and adults ≥18 years. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched between January 1995-31 October 2011 included: CSA Sociological Abstracts, EBSCOhost CINAHL, EBSCOhost Gender Studies, EBSCOhost Health Source Nursing: Academic Edition, EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus, EBSCOhost SocINDEX. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were reviewed against inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included studies were subject to quality appraisal and standardized data extraction. RESULTS: Of 2264 screened articles, 69 were included in the meta-method analysis. Only four studies defined gender or used gender theories. Findings were mostly presented as inherently the characteristic of gendered worldviews of participants. The major themes suggest a mismatch between secondary prevention/cardiac rehabilitation services and consumers' needs, which are usually portrayed as differing according to gender but may also be subject to intersecting influences such as age or socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: There is a persistent lack of theoretically informed gender analysis in qualitative literature in this field. Theory-driven gender analysis will improve the conceptual clarity of the evidence base for gender-sensitive cardiac rehabilitation programme development.
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 | 0.131 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".