Women's Cardiac Rehabilitation Program Adherence and Health Behaviours Following Referral to Three Different Program Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation is associated with significantly lower mortality and improved psychosocial well-being. However, women are less likely to participate than men. \n \nCR4HER was a single-blind, 3 parallel-arm, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial comparing CR program adherence, functional capacity, and health behaviors between women referred to mixed-sex, women-only, or home-based CR. The study occured between November 2009-July 2013. Low-risk patients with coronary artery disease were recruited from six sites in Ontario. Consenting participants completed a pre-program survey assessing health behaviors (physical activity, diet, medication adherence, and smoking), wore pedometers for 7 days, and clinical data were extracted from charts. \n \nParticipants were referred to CR at one of 3 sites. After intake assessment, including a graded exercise stress test, eligible patients were randomized to supervised mixed-sex, supervised women-only, or home-based CR. Six months later, CR adherence and exit assessment data were ascertained, and participants were mailed follow-up surveys and pedometers. \n \nAmong 264 consenting patients, 169 (64.0%) were eligible and randomized. Twenty-seven (16.0%) did not attend CR and 43 (25.4%) attended a different model than that to which they were randomized, with most women switching to a model other than home-based CR. Program adherence was moderate overall (54.4635.14%). Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences based on per protocol analysis (PP; p=.63), but as-treated, home-based participants attended significantly more than women-only (p<.05). \n \nOverall, there was a significant increase in functional capacity pre to post-program (p<.001). While there were no significant differences in functional capacity by model at CR exit based on PP, there was a significant difference on an as-treated basis, which sustained adjustment. Women attending mixed-sex CR attained significantly higher post-CR functional capacity than women attending home-based programs (p<.05). \n \nSelf-reported physical activity increased among women randomized to, and who attended, mixed-sex and women-only CR (ps<.05). Diet improved among women attending women-only CR (p<.05). However, analyses adjusted for confounding variables revealed no significant differences in any outcome by model. \n \nOffering women alternative program models may not promote greater CR adherence, functional capacity, or behavioral outcomes. Nevertheless, replication is warranted. Other proven strategies such as action planning and self-monitoring should be applied.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".