The experiences of patients undertaking a 'virtual' cardiac rehabilitation program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) are medically supervised, multidisciplinary programs that provide secondary prevention aimed at addressing risk factors and improving lifestyle behaviours for patients following an acute cardiac event. CRPs have been demonstrated to be a cost-effective and evidence-based mechanism to improve patient outcomes, but despite the known benefits of these programs, uptake remains poor. Poor attendance has been linked to many factors, but geographical accessibility is a key concern, since many CRPs are limited to hospitals in urban areas. The widespread availability of the Internet has made it possible to provide virtual health services to populations that may have previously been hard to access. This paper examines the qualitative findings from a 16-month mixed methods randomized controlled trial examining the impact of a virtual CRP (vCRP). The vCRP was revealed to be an accessible, appropriate, convenient and effective way to deliver cardiac rehabilitation services, with patients experiencing both clinical improvements and a high level of satisfaction. To understand the experience of patients undertaking the vCRP, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 22 participants. An analysis of the qualitative interviews revealed that the vCRP improved participants' access to healthcare professionals, supported them to make healthy choices, and enhanced feelings of accountability due to greater surveillance. Barriers to participation, such as computer literacy, and general perceptions of a vCRP were also examined. Further investigation into the use and long-term effectiveness of virtual programs across a broader range of healthcare settings is warranted, particularly in those with multiple chronic diseases and those located in rural and remote communities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".