Maintenance of Physical Activity and Exercise Capacity After Rehabilitation in Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physical activity is one of the core components in cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs. This study investigated the effect of an intervention based on the health action process approach (HAPA) together with family support in the maintenance of physical activity and exercise capacity in coronary heart disease after discharge from rehabilitation. MATERIALS & METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 96 patients with coronary heart disease were randomly assigned to control and intervention groups at the end of a rehabilitation program at Afshar Hospital, Yazd, Iran. HAPA Constructs and family support using a self-reported questionnaire and maximal oxygen uptake through a treadmill exercise test were measured prior to and 4 months after the intervention. RESULTS: HAPA-based intervention together with family support increased scores of HAPA constructs and family support in the intervention group compared with the control group. The results showed that physical activity and exercise capacity in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group after the intervention. CONCLUSION: HAPA-based intervention together with family support can be a useful tool for maintenance of physical activity and exercise capacity in coronary heart disease.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".