Effectiveness of an Education Intervention Among Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients in Canada: A Multi-Site Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although patient education is considered a core component of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, to our knowledge, no educational program designed for CR has been standardized in Canada. This absence of standardization may be due to a lack of reliable resources to educate these patients. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of an education intervention in improving knowledge and health behaviours among CR patients in 3 sites in Canada. Methods CR patients were exposed to an evidence- and theoretically based comprehensive education intervention. Patients completed surveys assessing knowledge, physical activity, food intake, self-efficacy, and health literacy. All outcomes were assessed pre- and post-CR. Paired t tests were used to investigate variable changes between pre- and post-CR, Pearson correlation coefficients were used to determine the association between knowledge and behaviours, and linear regression models were computed to investigate differences in overall post-CR knowledge based on participant characteristics. Results A total of 252 patients consented to participate, of whom 158 (63.0%) completed post-CR assessments. There was a significant improvement in patients' overall knowledge pre- to post-CR, as well as in exercise, food intake, and self-efficacy ( P < 0.05). Results showed a significant positive correlation between post-CR knowledge and food intake (r = 0.203; P = 0.01), self-efficacy (r = 0.201; P = 0.01), and health literacy (r = 0.241; P = 0.002). Education level (unstandardized beta = −2.511; P = 0.04) and pre-CR knowledge (unstandardized beta = 0.433; P < 0.001) were influential in changing post-CR knowledge. Conclusion In this first-ever multi-site study focusing on patient education for CR patients in Canada, the benefits of an education intervention have been supported.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".