Re‐engineering cardiac rehabilitation programmes: considering the patient's point of view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this paper is to report a study to describe how cardiac patients experience the first 3 months following a cardiac event requiring hospitalization, identify differences between the needs expressed by patients and the support they received during their recuperation and produce a preliminary model for the development of cardiac rehabilitation programmes, taking into account the patient perspective. BACKGROUND: Although cardiac rehabilitation should be standard care for patients with cardiovascular disease, less than 20% begin and maintain a rehabilitation programme. Cited barriers include inadequate rehabilitation services, sub-optimal referral, low participation rates of women and older adults and travel considerations. The literature suggests that programmes better adjusted to patient needs could increase attendance, but little research has considered this perspective. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with a purposefully selected sample of 20 men and women who had been hospitalized for myocardial infarction, angina or percutaneous angioplasty. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: A gap exists between what traditional rehabilitation programmes offer and patients' expressed needs during the recuperating process after hospitalization for a cardiac event. In our study, participants focused on stress management rather than on modifying health habits. Support groups were viewed as beneficial and, according to patients, accepting their condition, knowing their limits and better continuity of care would also help reduce stress. Based on the findings, we devised a model as the basis for developing cardiac rehabilitation programmes. CONCLUSION: Cardiac rehabilitation programmes need to shift their focus of attention from promoting healthier behaviours to responding to participants' perceived needs, alongside risk factor reduction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".