MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120606684 · doi:10.1136/heart.85.3.290

Psychosocial components of cardiac recovery and rehabilitation attendance

2001· article· en· W2120606684 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kathryn King, Dennis P. Humen, H L Smith, Cecile Phan, K K Teo

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPsychosocialRehabilitationAttendancePsychologyComponent (thermodynamics)MedicinePsychiatryPhysical therapyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relations between demographic factors, specific psychosocial factors, and cardiac rehabilitation attendance. DESIGN: Cohort, repeated measures design. SETTING: A large tertiary care centre in western Canada PATIENTS: 304 consecutive consenting patients discharged following acute myocardial infarction and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Jenkins self-efficacy expectation scales and activity checklists of behaviour performance for maintaining health and role resumption, modified version of the self-motivation inventory, and the shortened social support scale. RESULTS: Those who had higher role resumption behaviour performance scores at two weeks after discharge were significantly less likely to attend cardiac rehabilitation programmes. At six months after discharge, those who attended cardiac rehabilitation demonstrated higher health maintenance self-efficacy expectation and behaviour performance scores. Health maintenance self-efficacy expectation and behaviour performance improved over time. Women reported less social support but showed greater improvement in health maintenance self-efficacy expectation. Changes in self-efficacy scores were unrelated to-but changes in health maintenance behaviour performance scores were strongly associated with-cardiac rehabilitation attendance. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac patients and practitioners may have misconceptions about the mandate and potential benefits of rehabilitation programmes. Patients who resumed role related activities early and more completely apparently did not see the need to "rehabilitate" while those who attended cardiac rehabilitation programmes enhanced their secondary prevention behaviours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207