Impact of Duration in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program on Coronary Risk Profile and Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program length and the time course of changes in relevant outcomes are unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in coronary risk factors and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after 3 months and 6 months of cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: This is an observational study of a cohort of 126 consecutive cardiac rehabilitation patients who completed baseline, 3-month, and 6-month evaluations of coronary risk factors and HRQoL. The coronary risk factors included lipid profile, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and physical activity level. HRQoL was assessed using the Short Form-36 questionnaire (SF-36) comprising eight health concepts and two component scales (physical [PCS] and mental [MCS]). RESULTS: There was significant improvement in all coronary risk factors and HRQoL measures, except BMI, over the 6-month period (P < 0.001). Significant changes in blood pressure, physical activity, PCS, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were apparent at 3 months, and no additional significant changes in these variables occurred between 3 and 6 months. For total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and MCS, significant change was achieved between 3 and 6 months but not between baseline and 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary prevention and HRQoL outcomes improved at variable rates. Physical activity and physical function peaked at 3 months and were maintained at program completion. Significant improvements occurred in mental health recovery beyond the traditional 12-week CR program length. Outcomes furthest from normative values showed the most rapid improvement. Optimal duration of participation may vary according to the outcome of interest.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".