Build it and they will come: outcomes from a successful cardiac rehabilitation program at an Aboriginal Medical Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading disease burden in Aboriginal Australians, but culturally appropriate cardiac rehabilitation programs are lacking. We evaluated the uptake and effects on lifestyle, and cardiovascular risk factors, of cardiac rehabilitation at an Aboriginal Medical Service (AMS). Methods. The program involved weekly exercise and education sessions (through ‘yarning’) for Aboriginal people with or at risk of CVD. Participants’ perceptions of the program and the impact on risk factors were evaluated following 8 weeks of attendance. Results. In twenty-eight participants (20 females) who completed 8 weeks of sessions, body mass index (34.0 ± 5.1 v. 33.3 ± 5.2 kg m–2; P < 0.05), waist girth (113 ± 14 v. 109 ± 13 cm; P < 0.01) and blood pressure (135/78 ± 20/12 v. 120/72 ± 16/5 mmHg; P < 0.05) decreased and 6- min walk distance increased (296 ± 115 v. 345 ± 135 m; P < 0.01). ‘Yarning’ helped identify and address a range of chronic health issues including medication compliance, risk factor review and chest pain management. Conclusions. AMS-based cardiac rehabilitation was well attended, and improved cardiovascular risk factors and health management. An AMS is an ideal location for managing cardiovascular health and provides a setting conducive to addressing a broad range of chronic conditions. What is known about the topic? Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Aboriginal Australians, but less than 5% of eligible Aboriginal people attend hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. What does this paper add? This is the first study to describe a culturally appropriate cardiac rehabilitation program conducted in a metropolitan Aboriginal Medical Service. It provides a detailed account of the program’s components and its effects on physical and psychosocial determinants of cardiovascular health in participants. What are the implications for practitioners? Health management programs similar to the one evaluated in this study could be developed to suit the specific needs of other Indigenous communities around Australia to address a range of chronic conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".