The involvement of pharmacists in cardiac rehabilitation: a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To identify, review and evaluate the literature regarding the role of the pharmacist in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Method Electronic databases searched up to October 2004 were Medline, Pharmline, Iowa Drug Information service, International Pharmacy Abstracts, Embase, Scanners and Web of Science. Reference lists of identified papers were searched and a Zetoc email alert was created to identify additional papers. Papers were included only if they referred specifically to a CR programme or CR patients, and also referred to the involvement of pharmacists or concerned pharmacy practice research. Reports were not excluded on the basis of quality, however reports that met the criteria for inclusion were allocated an evidence grade to indicate quality. Key findings Thirteen reports were identified, of which six reports were purely descriptive accounts of pharmacists' involvement in CR (all were from the US) and seven were evaluative reports (four from the US, two from the UK and one from Canada). Descriptions of the involvement of pharmacists in CR included providing medicines information and education to patients, and optimising drug therapy. The lack of substantial research was notable among the evaluative reports. One study found quality of life and economic benefits as a result of the involvement of a pharmacist in CR, and another found that health professionals provide most of the medicines information and education required by CR patients. However these studies were weakened by a lack of meaningful outcome measures. Conclusion There is insufficient evidence on which to base firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the involvement of pharmacists in CR. This has implications for pharmacy practitioners, researchers and policymakers in CR.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".