Hospital versus community-based phase III cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: to compare patient and staff perceptions of phase III cardiac rehabilitation delivered in a hospital versus community setting. METHOD: data were collected by semi-structured interviews with staff and patients. Patients and staff members were interviewed in one of two local leisure centres and in the cardiac unit at Leeds General Infirmary. Five patients who had previously attended a hospital-based phase III programme, four patients who attended a community-based programme, and four hospital and community staff members participated. Data were analysed using a content analysis technique based on the framework' approach. RESULTS: three patients admitted having negative expectations of the community-based phase III programme. Maintaining attendance is more challenging in the community; however, progression rates to phase IV were better. Differences between programmes were identified in adherence to sessions, type and number of staff present, and number of sessions provided each week. All patients found the sessions helped with their rehabilitation and all stated that they would recommend their programme to others. CONCLUSION: both community- and hospital-based rehabilitation programmes were seen as successful by both patients and staff. The emergence of the community programme has proven to be a valuable additional service for cardiac patients. However, if the future of phase III cardiac rehabilitation in Leeds is to be community-based, then specific issues such as exercise adherence will need to be addressed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".