Achieving Interprofessional Practice in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiac rehabilitation staff members consider interprofessional practice to be the standard for delivering effective care. However, it is not known how interprofessional teams collaborate or what they consider to be important elements of collaboration. Thus, it is important to investigate how healthcare professionals plan and communicate care, work together, and define their roles as members of the cardiac rehabilitation teams. The purpose of this report was to provide an analysis of current literature related to interprofessional practice in cardiac rehabilitation, with a particular focus on examining the terms interprofessional practice and collaboration. METHODS: For this review, published articles in peer-reviewed journals for the preceding 20-year period were included from online databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar). Key words used in the search included "cardiac rehabilitation," "cardiac recovery," and "interprofessional and interdisciplinary practice and collaboration." Of the 67 articles reviewed, 7 met inclusion criteria specifically addressing interprofessional practice in cardiac rehabilitation. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that (1) the terms interprofessional and multidisciplinary are commonly used interchangeably in healthcare, revealing a lack of clarity regarding interprofessional practices and approaches, and (2) there are few articles that clearly describe, define, or discuss interprofessional practice or collaboration in cardiac rehabilitation settings, rendering it difficult for practitioners to adhere to published practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: It is unclear why and how professional team members practice in specific ways to form cardiac teams. Further research is required to increase an understanding of these issues and to develop possibilities for the enhancement of cardiac rehabilitation practice.
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 | 0.029 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".