Health behaviours of rural Australians following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Following a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), emphasis is placed on healthy lifestyle modification by means of secondary prevention. The literature suggests Australians have difficulty within the period following a PCI, particularly the rural cohort. Despite having a higher incidence of cardiac disease, there is minimal evidence on secondary prevention within the rural Australian population. Therefore, there is a clear need for a comprehensive review to gather literature of the health behaviours of this population post-PCI. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to obtain literature within 2007-2017. The following databases were searched in January 2018: Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed Central, Embase, ProQuest and PsycINFO. Search strings were derived from three topics: 'behaviours', 'rural' and 'PCI'. RESULTS: Ten publications met the inclusion criteria. Over half the studies were of a quantitative design, along with one qualitative study. Overall, there was minimal published literature on the rural Australian population. Three key themes were identified from the literature: referral and attendance to cardiac rehabilitation, isolation and transitioning difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic scoping review highlights the need for future research to determine strategies to improve healthy behaviours of rural Australians post-PCI.
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 | 0.016 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".