Factors Associated with Work Readiness and Adjustment in Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1477 Work recovery is challenging for many cardiac patients. Many do not return to work and many have limitations following return to work. Studies have focused on the endpoint of work status and have not examined readiness to return to work and adjustment following return to work. PURPOSE: This preliminary study was undertaken to examine the influence of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) exposure, selfefficacy, sickness, job demands and social support on work readiness and adjustment (WRA) in patients with cardiac disease. METHODS: Cross-sectional design with questionnaire (N = 102) and clinical data (N = 45) collected at from patients at program entry, 6 and 12 months of CR. Dependent measures included a novel, visual analogue scale (0 – not ready return to work; 10 – back to work and managing well) of work adjustment. Independent measures included self-report of morbidity, illness perception, disease impact, functional ability, self efficacy, job demands and social support. Clinical variables included measures of disease severity and functional capacity. Data were analysed through correlation and multiple regression methods. RESULTS: Participants had and average age of 57 ± 10.7 years with a median duration of illness of 31 weeks. Eighty-two percent were male, 73% were married or equivalent. Fifty-three percent had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting, 57% had suffered a myocardial infarction, and 37% were experiencing angina. Sixty nine percent of participants in the sample were working. Patients who were working differed significantly in their selfrating of WRA (8.37/10 ± 2.05) from those not working (4.25/10 ± 2.57, t test, p<.001). Significant associations were found between WRA and measures of self-efficacy, illness perceptions and impact, morbidity, depression, angina and self-report of function. No association was observed between WRA and clinical measures of disease severity or functional capacity. Forward stepwise regression produced a model of WRA consisting of self-efficacy (B = .30), employer support (B = .31), physical job demands (B = .18), emotional function (B = .257) and illness identity (B = −.16). Patients with more exposure to CR indicated better WRA (B = .199, adjusted R2 = .58). CONCLUSIONS: A continuous measure of WRA is associated with work status and multiple individual and social factors. Measuring WRA in this fashion may provide a more expansive picture of the role of interventions such as CR and other factors in returning patients to optimal role function and quality of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".