Screening for Depression in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: Practice guidelines promote depression screening in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The objectives of this study were to review (1) CR program compliance with depression screening recommendations, and (2) the evidence evaluating whether screening for depression is related to improved outcomes in patients eligible for CR. METHODS: A limited literature search was conducted on key resource databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, SCOPUS, and the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). A focused Internet search was also conducted with a concentrated gray literature search for evidence reports. Inclusion criteria included English language documents published between January 1, 2002, and August 1, 2013. RESULTS: Five studies were included in this review. Three studies were found in regard to the first objective and reported varying program compliance rates with depression screening recommendations, ranging from 29.0% to 68.4%. Two studies examined whether depression screening led to improved outcomes in CR-eligible patients. Both studies found that, among patients who recalled being screened, there was no significant difference in depressive symptom scores at followup as compared with patients who were not screened (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third to two-thirds of CR programs routinely screen for depression. There are no randomized controlled trials testing the effects of screening on any outcomes. Although some observational studies suggest that screening alone may not improve patient outcomes, more randomized controlled research is needed to address this issue. Practice guidelines promote depression screening in cardiac rehabilitation. One-third to two-thirds of cardiac rehabilitation programs routinely screen. The evidence evaluating whether screening is related to improved outcomes was reviewed. Few published studies used an observational design only, and findings suggested that screening alone may not improve outcomes. Results from randomized controlled research are needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it