A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Exercise Maintenance Intervention in Men and Women After Cardiac Rehabilitation (ECO-PCR Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise maintenance interventions are needed for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) graduates to maintain moderate and vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA). We tested an exercise facilitator intervention (EFI) to promote exercise maintenance compared with usual care (UC) separately in men and women. METHODS: This was a 3-site, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, superiority trial (ECO-PCR). CR graduates were stratified by site and sex and randomly allocated (concealed). EFI participants received a face-to-face introductory session, 5 small-group counseling teleconferences, and 3 personal calls from a trained facilitator over 50 weeks. In-person assessments were undertaken at baseline and 26 and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome was weekly minutes of MVPA, measured by accelerometer. Secondary outcomes were exercise capacity, risk factors, quality of life, and enrollment in community-based exercise programs. Effects were tested with the use of linear mixed models. RESULTS: A total of 449 CR graduates (135 women, 314 men) were randomised (n = 226 EFI, n = 223 UC). In the intention-to-treat analysis for men and for women, there were no significant effects for treatment or time on MVPA. In a planned secondary analysis that considered only those adherent to EFI (completed ≥ 66% of sessions; per-protocol), bouted MVPA (ie, in sustained bouts of ≥ 10 min) was higher in women in the EFI group (mean = 132.6 ± 135.2 min/wk at 52 weeks) compared with UC (111.8 ± 113.1; P = 0.013). Regarding secondary outcomes, in women, a treatment group main effect was observed for blood pressure (P = 0.011) and exercise capacity (P = 0.019; both per-protocol) favouring EFI; no other differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of CR completers, an EFI showed promise for women, but was ineffective in men.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".