Women's Experiences Accessing a Women-Centered Cardiac Rehabilitation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The health benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for women living with heart disease are well documented, yet women remain underrepresented in traditionally structured CR programs. This health service delivery gap has been attributed to a number of sex-related factors experienced by women, including lower rates of physician referral, travel-related barriers, competing work and caregiving responsibilities, greater cardiovascular disease severity, and number of comorbid health conditions. Whether a program specifically designed for women is able to address these barriers and facilitate women's participation is a question that has seldom been explored in the CR literature. As part of a larger study exploring whether 6 predefined principles of women's health (empowerment of women, accessible programs, broad definition of health care, high-quality of care, collaborative planning, and innovative and creative approaches) are reflected in the practices of the Women's Cardiovascular Health Initiative (WCHI) (a comprehensive CR and primary prevention program designed for women), the objective of this analysis was to explore how the principle of "accessible programs" is experienced by women participating in the WCHI. PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD: Fourteen women previously enrolled in the WCHI program participated in a single, in-person qualitative interview. Transcripts were analyzed using a constant-comparative approach to identify relevant themes related to program accessibility. RESULTS: Key themes identified included participants' experiences with acquiring physician referral, negotiating transportation issues, and navigating program schedules. Women discussed how peer support and staff members' willingness to address their health-related concerns facilitated their participation. CONCLUSION: While a women-centered CR/primary prevention program may facilitate and encourage women's participation by providing flexible program schedules as well as peer and professional support, efforts are still required to address persistent barriers for women related to physician referral and transportation to programs.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".