A Qualitative Study of Determinants Influencing Participation in a Cardiac Prevention Exercise-Based Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to understand the determinants influencing the participation rate and the compliance in a primary and secondary cardiac prevention exercise-based program using a qualitative methodology. METHODS: With a descriptive qualitative approach, 10 participants were interviewed about their experiences at their entry to the program and following the end of the program. A qualitative analysis was performed by the identification of different themes and sub themes emerging from their experience and compared the first and second discussions. Those data helped understand determinants related to difficulties encountered by several participants in primary and secondary cardiac prevention and exercise programs. RESULTS: The determinants or factors emerging from the analysis of the interviews were: (1) knowledge and awareness of disease/risk factor, (2) perception of self-efficacy, (3) motivation, and (4) feeling of belonging to the program. Results showed that the four participants who were the most compliant to the program had a better awareness of the cardiac risk factors and their conditions, were more willing to make changes in their lifestyles to reach their objectives, had a better perception of self-efficacy, and had a better feeling of belonging to the program. Both compliant and non compliant participants had many episodes of discouragement during the program, and faced many barriers that came to interfere with their progress. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to consider the many factors and barriers that could be present in individuals undergoing a primary and secondary cardiac prevention programs to increase compliance and avoid early drop-outs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".