Advocacy for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation globally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death globally. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based intervention recommended for patients with CVD, to prevent recurrent events and to improve quality of life. However, despite the proven benefits, only a small percentage of those would benefit from CR actually receive it worldwide. This paper by the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation forwards the groundwork for successful CR advocacy to achieve broader reimbursement, and hence implementation. METHODS: First, the results of the International Council's survey on national CR reimbursement policies by government and insurance companies are summarized. Second, a multi-faceted approach to CR advocacy is forwarded. Finally, as per the advocacy recommendations, the economic impact of CVD and the corresponding benefits of CR and its cost-effectiveness are summarized. This provides the case for CR reimbursement advocacy. RESULTS: Thirty-one responses were received, from 25 different countries: 18 (58.1 %) were from high-income countries, 10 (32.4 %) from upper middle-income, and 3 (9.9 %) from lower middle-income countries. When asked who reimburses at least some portion of CR services in their country, 19 (61.3 %) reported the government, 17 (54.8 %) reported patients pay out-of-pocket, 16 (51.6 %) reported insurance companies, 12 (38.7 %) reported that it is shared between the patient and another source, and 7 (22.6 %) reported another source. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients pay out-of-pocket for CR. CR reimbursement around the world is inconsistent and insufficient. Advocacy campaigns forwarding the CR cause, supported by the relevant literature, enlisting sources of support in a unified manner with an organized plan, are needed, and must be pursued persistently.
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 | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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".