Getting the most out of cardiac rehabilitation: a review of referral and adherence predictors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation reduces mortality and morbidity but is utilised by only a fraction of eligible cardiac patients, with the participation rate of women being only about half that of men. This quantitative review assesses 32 studies meeting inclusion criteria, describing 16,804 patients, 5882 of whom were female. It was found that the main predictor of referral to a cardiac rehabilitation programme was the physician's endorsement of the effectiveness of such a programme. Patients were more likely to participate in rehabilitation programmes when they were actively referred, educated, married, possessed high self efficacy, and when the programmes were easily accessible. Patients were less likely to participate when they had to travel long distances to participate in a cardiac rehabilitation programme, or experienced guilt over family obligations. Women were less often referred and participated less often even after referral. In conclusion, many of the observed predictors, including those particular to women, are potentially modifiable with the help of health professionals.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it