MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805529669 · doi:10.1177/2047487318781359

Determinants of participation and risk factor control according to attendance in cardiac rehabilitation programmes in coronary patients in Europe: EUROASPIRE IV survey

2018· article· en· W2805529669 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Society of CardiologyMerckAmgen
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationAttendancePhysical therapyBody mass indexPopulationRisk factorMyocardial infarctionAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyUnstable anginaInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim The purpose of this study was to describe the proportions of patients referred to and attending cardiac rehabilitation programmes in Europe and to compare lifestyle and risk factor targets achieved according to participation in a cardiac rehabilitation programme. Methods The EUROASPIRE IV cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 78 centres from 24 European countries. Consecutive patients aged <80 years with acute coronary syndromes and/or revascularization procedures were interviewed at least six months after their event. Results A total of 7998 patients (24% females) were interviewed. Overall, 51% were advised to participate in a cardiac rehabilitation programme and 81% of them attended at least half of the sessions; being 41% of the study population. Older patients, women, those at low socio-economic status or enrolled with percutaneous coronary intervention and unstable angina, as well as those with a previous history of coronary disease, heart failure, hypertension or dysglycaemia were less likely to be advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation programme. People smoking prior to the recruiting event were less likely to participate. The proportions of patients achieving lifestyle targets were higher in the cardiac rehabilitation programme group as compared to the non-cardiac rehabilitation programme group: stopping smoking (57% vs 47%, p < 0.0001), recommended physical activity levels (47% vs 38%, p < 0.0001) and body mass index<30 kg/m 2 (65% vs 61%, p=0.0007). However, there were no differences in the blood pressure, lipids and glucose control. Patients who attended a cardiac rehabilitation programme had significantly lower anxiety and depression scores and better medication adherence. Conclusions Only half of all coronary patients were referred and a minority attended a cardiac rehabilitation programme. Those attending were more likely to achieve lifestyle targets, had lower depression and anxiety, and better medication adherence. There is still considerable potential to further reduce cardiovascular risk by increasing uptake and fully integrating secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation to provide a modern preventive cardiology programme.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it