Keeping bodies in motion: Cardiac rehabilitation specialists' views on exercise maintenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to increase exercise levels and prevent subsequent cardiac events; however, people do not maintain this change post-program. The purpose of this study was to help identify what factors are important for cardiac rehabilitation participants to maintain their exercise levels post-program. Ten cardiac rehabilitation exercise specialists were recruited from Canadian cardiac rehabilitation programs and interviewed over the telephone using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews lasted on average between 25-35 minutes. An inductive qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts, which were transcribed verbatim. Two coders conducted the analysis separately. Three dominant themes emerged from the data. First, participants identified the importance of specific motivational factors including the fear of another cardiac event, beliefs in the importance of maintained health, and presence of a strong social support system. The second theme focused on necessary improvements needed in cardiac rehabilitation programs to enhance exercise maintenance. Specifically, participants felt that tailoring sessions, tracking progress during and post program, having highly trained and educated staff, and conducting an exit meeting before discharge would assist with maintenance. The final theme centered on improvements for the continuation of care after the program. Participants suggested that increasing the availability of staff and access to facilities, increasing collaboration with different organizations such as community fitness centers, including a follow up protocol, and designing a program that facilitates the transition from end program to daily life would be beneficial. These findings offer a unique detailed viewpoint from exercise specialists on exercise maintenance. Given that exercise specialists work directly with patients, these findings can help inform future theory-based interventions to inform practice and enhance exercise maintenance among this population.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".