Tool validation: Health professionals’ perception of the role for a cardiac rehabilitation program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Complications from cardiovascular diseases represent a major concern to health professionals worldwide. Cardiac rehabilitation programs have proven to decrease disease progression, improve outcomes, and promote a healthy lifestyle. Similar evidence, however, has not been established in many countries, including Jordan. Exploring the health professionals’ understanding of the impact that a cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP) can make is necessary to increase stakeholder acceptance. One approach is to use a valid tool is that is focused on establishing a common understanding. Purpose: This study purpose was to validate a new composite tool that measured the health care professionals’ perceived role of cardiac rehabilitation programs, and factors influencing their establishment. Methods: A purposive sample of 110 health professionals working in clinical settings within Amman, Jordan completed a questionnaire, which was statistically examined for reliability and validity. Discussion: The resulting five themes (factors) from the internal consistency, principal component analysis and construct validity indicated that the questionnaire is valid and reliable. The emerging factors were: purpose of CRP; factors influencing establishing a CRP; definition of CRP; influence of CRP on health professionals’ scope of practice; and how does absence of CRP affect health professionals’ practice and patient outcome. Conclusion: Although the questionnaire is valid and reliable, it needs further study to ensure stability on retesting. There is a need to establish rehabilitation programs that on one hand expand the concept of health care and on the other expand the scope of practice and utilize the resources available within the community.
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 | 0.044 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".