Promoting participation in cardiac rehabilitation: patient choices and experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation can be an effective means for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, but a majority of eligible individuals fail to attend or drop out prematurely. Little research has examined patients' decisions about attendance. AIMS: This paper reports a study examining patients' beliefs and decision-making about cardiac rehabilitation attendance. METHODS: A purposive sample of patients from a mixed urban-rural region of Scotland was studied in 2001 using focus groups. Those who were eligible for a standardized 12-week cardiac rehabilitation programme were compared, with separate focus groups held for individuals with high attendance (>60% attendance; n = 27), high rates of attrition (<60% attendance; n = 9) and non-attendance (0% attendance; n = 8). A total of 44 patients (33 men; 11 women) took part in eight focus groups. RESULTS: Participants from all groups held sophisticated and cohesive frameworks of beliefs that influenced their attendance decisions. These beliefs related to the self, coronary heart disease, cardiac rehabilitation, other attending patients, and health professionals' knowledge base. An enduring embarrassment about group or public exercise also influenced attendance. Those who attended reported increased faith in their bodies, a heightened sense of fitness and a willingness to support new patients who attended. CONCLUSIONS: Reassurance to ease exercise embarrassment should be given before and during the early stages of programmes, and this could be provided by existing patients. Strategies to promote inclusion should address the inhibiting factors identified in the study, and should present cardiac rehabilitation as a comprehensive programme of activities likely to be of benefit to the individual irrespective of personal characteristics, such as age, sex or exercise capacity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".