Cardiac Rehabilitation Program Adherence and Functional Capacity Among Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare program adherence and functional capacity between women referred to supervised mixed-sex, supervised women-only, or home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cardiac Rehabilitation for Heart Event Recovery (CR4HER) was a single-blind, 3 parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The study took place between November 1, 2009, and July 31, 2013. Low-risk patients with coronary artery disease were recruited from 6 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Consenting participants completed a preprogram survey, and clinical data were extracted from charts. Participants were referred to CR at 1 of 3 sites. After intake assessment, including a graded exercise stress test, eligible patients were randomized to supervised mixed-sex, supervised women-only, or home-based CR. Six months later, CR adherence and exit assessment data were ascertained. RESULTS: Of the 264 consenting patients, 169 (64.0%) were eligible and randomized. Twenty-seven (16.0%) did not attend, and 43 (25.4%) attended a different model. Program adherence was moderate overall (54.46%±35.14%). Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences based on per-protocol analysis (P=.63), but as-treated, home-based participants attended significantly more than did women-only participants (P<.05). Overall, there was a significant increase in functional capacity preprogram to postprogram (P<.001). Although there were no significant differences in functional capacity by model at CR exit based on per-protocol analysis, there was a significant difference on an as-treated basis, which sustained adjustment. Women attending mixed-sex CR attained significantly higher post-CR functional capacity than did women attending home-based programs (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Offering women alternative program models may not promote greater CR adherence or functional capacity; however, replication is warranted. Other proven strategies such as action planning and self-monitoring should be applied. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01019135.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".