Cardiac rehabilitation services in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cardiac rehabilitation programs develop in accordance with guidelines, but also in response to local needs and resources. This study evaluated features of Ontario cardiac rehabilitation programs in accordance with guidelines, emerging evidence and treating underserved populations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, all Ontario cardiac rehabilitation programs were mailed an investigator-generated survey. Responses were received from 38 of 45 (84.4%) programs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (71.1%) cardiac rehabilitation programs were located within a hospital. Twenty-four (63.2%) programs reported that they offer two sessions of exercise and education per week. Twenty-six (68.4%) programs offered an alternative model of program delivery other than on-site, with 10 (27.0%) programs reporting they tailored their programs to rural patients. Twenty-three (62.2%) programs provided services to patients with a noncardiac primary indication. Twenty-six (68.4%) programs systematically screened patients for depressive symptoms. Twenty-seven (71.1%) offered resources to patients postgraduation. CONCLUSION: Most cardiac rehabilitation programs offered alternative models of care, such as home-based rehabilitation. Cardiac rehabilitation sites are well integrated within their community, enabling smooth postcardiac rehabilitation transitions for patients. Cardiac rehabilitation programs continue to offer proven comprehensive components, while simultaneously attempting to adapt to meet the needs of patients with other chronic diseases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".