Long-term Follow-up Of Clinical Effectiveness Of A Cardiac Rehabilitation Program For Women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer among Canadian women. Women living with CVD who participate in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are able to improve their functional capacity, CVD risk profile, and health-related quality of life. Although CR has been shown to be an important intervention, studies continue to report low enrollment and participation rates for women compared to men. In addition to this under-representation in traditional CR programs, follow-up outcomes post CR is limited in this population. The purpose of this study was to describe long-term outcomes from a women-only CR program. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre cohort of participants who entered a 24-week CR program between Jan 1, 2007 and Oct 1, 2013 was evaluated for exercise capacity, cardiac risk factors and quality of life at entry, discharge, and 6- and 12-month follow-up from discharge. RESULTS: Of 981 participants assessed for intake between Jan 1, 2007 and Oct 1, 2013, 589 patients entered CR (mean age = 62.5 ± 11.6 yrs) and 392 entered Primary Prevention (mean age = 57 ± 10.7 yrs). Baseline characteristics will be described. Among 422 patients completing the CR program (dropout rate of 14.7%), significant improvements were seen at discharge compared to intake with exercise capacity (p <0.001), Duke Activity Status Index (p=.005), Beck Depression Inventory (p<0.001), and SF-36 physical summary scores (PCS) (p<0.001) Sixty percent of women who completed the program returned for a 6-month follow-up (n=252), and 73% of those women returned for a 12 month follow-up (n=183). Improvements measured at discharge in aerobic capacity, Duke Activity Status Index, Beck Depression Inventory, SF-36 PCS were maintained at 6- and 12-month follow-up time points. Serum low density lipoprotein was not significantly different at discharge but was significantly reduced at 6mos compared to intake (p=0.003) and maintained at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The 24-week comprehensive women’s only program was successful at reducing important cardiac risk factors, such as aerobic capacity, physical health, moods and quality of life, long term. Whether or not the improvements are sustained in those who do not attend for follow-up is currently unknown and worthy of further investigation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".