Examining Patient Outcome Quality Indicators Based on Wait Time From Referral to Entry Into Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether meeting the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) ≤60-day wait time from cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral to enrollment is associated with CCS patient-level quality indicator outcomes. METHODS: This pilot observational study consisted of 69 participants entering CR separated into 2 groups based on wait time (≤60-day, n = 45; >60-day, n = 24). Data were collected at baseline, and 1, 4 (CR completion), 6, and 12 months after baseline. Quality indicators for achieving a 0.5 peak metabolic equivalent (MET) improvement at CR completion, physical activity of 150 min/wk of moderate-vigorous physical activity, and CR adherence were assessed. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty participants completed the study (≤60-day, n = 40; >60-day, n = 20). In the ≤60-day group, 92% of participants achieved the 0.5 MET improvement upon CR completion; whereas 60% of the >60-day group met this criteria (P ≤ .05). For the 150 min/wk of moderate-vigorous physical activity and CR adherence, both groups were not significantly different at any time. Elevated depressive symptoms were initially observed in 45% of participants in the ≤60-day group and 35% in the >60-day group (NS) and decreased to 8% in the ≤60-day group compared with 30% in the >60-day group at 12 months (P ≤ .05). CONCLUSIONS: Meeting the CCS 60-day acceptable wait time is associated with improvements in METs and depressive symptoms, but not with physical activity or CR adherence. A larger observational study is warranted to explore patient-level CCS quality indicators during and after CR.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".