MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915794115 · doi:10.1177/2047487319827453

Cardiac rehabilitation availability and delivery in Europe: How does it differ by region and compare with other high-income countries?

2019· article· en· W2915794115 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana Abreu, Ella Pesah, Marta Supervía, Karam Turk-Adawi, Birna Bjarnason‐Wehrens, Francisco López-Jiménez, Marco Ambrosetti, Karl Andersen, Vojislav Giga, Duško Vulić, Eleonora Vataman, Dan Gaiță, Jacqueline M. Cliff, Evangelia Kouidi, İlker Yağcı, Attila Simon, Arto J. Hautala, Eglė Tamulevičiūtė-Prascienė, Hareld Kemps, Zbigniew Eysymontt, Štefan Farský, Jo Hayward, Eva Prescott, Susan Dawkes, Bruno Pavy, Anna Kiessling, Eliška Sovová, Sherry L. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteYork University
FundersWorld Heart FederationYork University
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study were to establish cardiac rehabilitation availability and density, as well as the nature of programmes, and to compare these by European region (geoscheme) and with other high-income countries. A survey was administered to cardiac rehabilitation programmes globally. Cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate programme identification. Density was computed using global burden of disease study ischaemic heart disease incidence estimates. Four high-income countries were selected for comparison (N = 790 programmes) to European data, and multilevel analyses were performed. Cardiac rehabilitation was available in 40/44 (90.9%) European countries. Data were collected in 37 (94.8% country response rate). A total of 455/1538 (29.6% response rate) programme respondents initiated the survey. Programme volumes (median 300) were greatest in western European countries, but overall were higher than in other high-income countries (P < 0.001). Across all Europe, there was on average only 1 CR spot per 7 IHD patients, with an unmet regional need of 3,449,460 spots annually. Most programmes were funded by social security (n = 25, 59.5%; with significant regional variation, P < 0.001), but in 72 (16.0%) patients paid some or all of the programme costs (or ∼18.5% of the ∼€150.0/programme) out of pocket. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in 70% or more of programmes (lower for stable coronary disease), with no regional variation. Programmes had a multidisciplinary team of 6.5 ± 3.0 staff (number and type varied regionally; and European programmes had more staff than other high-income countries), offering 8.5 ± 1.5/10 core components (consistent with other high-income countries) over 24.8 ± 26.0 hours (regional differences, P < 0.05). European cardiac rehabilitation capacity must be augmented. Where available, services were consistent with guidelines, but varied regionally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207