Factors influencing participation in cardiac rehabilitation programmes after referral and initial attendance: qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Greater participation in cardiac rehabilitation improves morbidity and mortality in people with coronary heart disease, but little is understood of patients' decisions to participate. METHODS: To develop interventions aimed at increasing completion of programmes, we conducted a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis to explore the complex factors and processes influencing participation in cardiac rehabilitation programmes after referral and initial access. To be included in the review, studies had to contain a qualitative research component, population specific data on programme participation in adults >18 years, and be published ≥1995 as full articles or theses. Ten databases were searched (31 October 2011) using 100+ search terms. RESULTS: Of 2264 citations identified, 62 studies were included involving: 1646 patients (57% female; mean age 64.2), 143 caregivers, and 79 professionals. Patients' participation was most strongly influenced by perceptions of the nature, suitability and scheduling of programmes, social comparisons made possible by programmes, and the degree to which programmes, providers, and programme users met expectations. Women's experiences of these factors rendered them less likely to complete. Comparatively, perceptions of programme benefits had little influence on participation. CONCLUSIONS: Factors reducing participation in programmes are varied but amenable to intervention. Participation should be viewed as a 'consumer behaviour' and interventions should mobilize family support, promote 'patient friendly' scheduling, and actively harness the social, identity-related, and experiential aspects of participation.
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 | 0.067 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".