Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient satisfaction has become an important indicator of quality and may be related to greater adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The objectives of this narrative review were to investigate (1) patient satisfaction with CR and its relationship to adherence or health outcomes, and (2) assessment tools applicable to CR. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on key resource databases, including MEDLINE, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Instruments. A focused Internet and gray literature search was also conducted. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies were included. Patient satisfaction was high overall, especially related to education received. In 4 studies, patient satisfaction with treatment was compared in patients who attended CR with those who did not. In 2 of these studies where items were investigator generated, significant differences favoring CR were found. In the 2 studies where the treatment satisfaction subscale of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire was administered, no differences were observed. Only 1 study was identified, which examined the relationship of patient satisfaction with any outcome, and revealed that greater satisfaction was related to greater program adherence. There was a dearth of valid assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations in CR association guidelines to consider patient satisfaction, there is an absence of research assessing it. The studies that have assessed it administered tools of questionable psychometric rigor. It remains to be determined whether patient satisfaction is related to any meaningful outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".