Coronary Artery Disease Patient Perspectives on Exercise Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Participation in exercise programs postmyocardial infarction is highly protective against future events and mortality. Unfortunately, uptake and maintenance of exercise participation has been documented as being low. This is thought to be due to a myriad of barriers. Qualitative research is a powerful tool to explain behaviors. We sought to summarize existing qualitative literature exploring patient perspectives of participation in exercise after a cardiac event. METHODS: We updated and built upon a previous systematic review and meta-synthesis by identifying qualitative literature that was not previously captured. We used grounded formal theory to synthesize the qualitative findings in the selected literature. This process led to the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework for understanding the determinants of exercise participation. RESULTS: We found that external, internal, and cultural factors work together as umbrella themes to influence exercise initiation and continued participation in patients who have experienced a cardiac event. Internal factors expand into physical, cognitive, and emotional domains, which include fear, motivation, and mood. External factors include the domains of pragmatic and social considerations such as safety, accessibility, and social support networks. Cognitive and social domains were the most frequently cited factors influencing participation in exercise programs. CONCLUSIONS: The framework we outline allows for a more complete understanding of the factors that influence the exercise behaviors of patients with coronary artery disease. Cardiac rehabilitation programs should consider the key factors and capitalize on this knowledge, making these facilitators rather than barriers to exercise participation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".