Participants’ Perspectives of a Primary Exercise-Based Prevention Program for Cardiac Patients: A Prepost Intervention Qualitative Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perseverance in exercise-based, cardiovascular disease prevention programs is generally very low. The purpose of this case study is to understand the experience of participants enrolled in a 6-month primary and secondary exercise-focused, cardiovascular disease prevention out of hospital program. Ten participants were interviewed about their experiences at entry and after it ended 6 months later to understand the facilitators and difficulties encountered by participants in such exercise programs. Four out of ten participants completed the 6-month program. The six participants who left the program accepted to contribute to the postprogram interview. The results showed that the four participants who persevered in the program became aware of cardiac risk factors and their conditions were willing to make changes in their lifestyles to reach their objectives, felt a strong perception of self-efficacy, and felt like they belonged in the program. Both persevering and nonpersevering participants experienced many episodes of discouragement during the program and faced many barriers that interfered with their progress. Suggestions to help coping with these barriers while reinforcing self-efficacy and the sentiment of belonging are discussed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".