Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and their caregiver’s experiences of home-based rehabilitation (REACH-HFpEF): mixed methods process evaluation of the REACH-HFpEF single centre pilot randomised controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Whilst heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) affects almost 50 percent of the HF population, evidence-based treatment options remain limited. However, there is emerging evidence of the potential value of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. This study reports the process evaluation conducted as part of the REACH-HFpEF trial. Methods: Mixed methods process evaluation parallel to a single centre (Tayside, Scotland) pilot randomised controlled trial with quantitative assessment of intervention fidelity and a qualitative exploration of HFpEF patients’ and caregivers’ experiences. The Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention consisted of self-help manual for patients and caregivers, facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. Data included audio-recorded intervention sessions; demographic information; intervention fidelity scores; and qualitative interviews conducted following completion of intervention in a purposeful sample of 15 HFpEF patients and 7 caregivers, Results: Intervention fidelity analysis was indicative of the adequate delivery of the majority of the REACH-HF components, with three items relating caregiver involvement (addressing emotional consequences of being a caregiver, caregiver health and well-being, and closure of the session) scoring poorly. Qualitative interviews identified three key themes for patients and caregivers: (1) understanding their condition, (2) emotional consequences of HF, and (3) patients’ and caregivers’ responses to the REACH-HF intervention were uncovered by qualitative interviews. Conclusions: The REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFpEF appears feasible and well accepted model for delivery of a CR intervention, with the potential to address key unmet needs of patients and their caregivers who are often excluded from service provision and current CR programmes. Results inform a future full multicentre randomised clinical trial.
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 | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".