Quality of Life Following Participation in Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs of Longer or Shorter than 6 Months: Does Duration Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation results in significant health benefits. However, there is wide variation in program duration, and little is known about the optimal duration of CR for patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare quality of life (QoL) of patients who participated in CR programs of < or ≥6 months duration versus patients who did not attend CR. A total of 1056 cardiac outpatients completed mailed surveys at baseline and 9 months later. Patients were categorized based on CR participation in one of 31 programs: a program of < or ≥6 months duration, or nonattendance. Outcomes were body mass index, activity status, depressive symptoms, physical activity, QoL, posttraumatic growth inventory (PTGI), and percentage of CR sessions attended. Generalized estimating equations were used. A total of 148 (14%) patients participated in a program of < 6 months, and 183 (17.3%) participated in a program of ≥6 months. Patients who participated in the former completed a greater percentage of CR sessions (P = 0.02). Activity status (P = 0.002), several domains of QoL (P > 0.0001), and PTGI (P = 0.007) were significantly greater regardless of CR duration when compared to those who did not attend CR. There were no significant differences in outcomes when comparing patients attending CR programs of < or ≥6 months duration. Patients achieve greater activity status and QoL when compared to those who did not attend CR, regardless of program duration. This could be a result of greater program adherence among those who attend shorter programs. Future research is needed using a randomized design to assess effects of program duration on cardiac events and mortality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".