Lessons learned from community- and home-based physical activity programs: A narrative review of factors influencing women’s participation in cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death in women. Despite the well-known benefits of cardiac rehabilitation, it remains underutilized, especially among women. Physical activity programs in the community, however, attract a large female population, suggesting that they overcome barriers to physical activity encountered by women. The characteristics of interventions that extend beyond the traditional cardiac rehabilitation model and promote physical activity merit examination. OBJECTIVES: This narrative review aimed to: (a) summarize women's barriers to attend cardiac rehabilitation; (b) examine the characteristics of community- and home-based physical activity or lifestyle coaching interventions; and (c) discuss which barriers may be addressed by these alternative programs. METHODS: Studies were included if they: (a) were published within the past 10 years; (b) included ≥70% women with a mean age ≥45 years; (c) implemented a community- or home-based physical activity intervention or a lifestyle education/behavioral coaching program; and (d) aimed to improve physical activity levels or physical function. RESULTS: Most interventions reported high (≥70%) participation rates and significant increases in physical activity levels at follow-up; some improved physical function and/or cardiovascular disease risk factors. Community- and home-based interventions address women's cardiac rehabilitation barriers by: implementing appealing modes of physical activity (e.g. dancing, group-walking, technology-based balance exercises); adapting the program to meet participants' needs; offering flexible options regarding timing and setting (e.g. closer to home, the workplace or faith-based institutions); and promoting social interactions. CONCLUSION: Cardiac rehabilitation can be enhanced by understanding the specific needs of women; novel elements such as program offerings, convenient settings and opportunities for socialization should be considered when designing cardiac rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".