Barriers and facilitators to participant adherence of dietary recommendations within comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programmes: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify individual-, provider- and system/environmental-level barriers and facilitators affecting cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participants' adherence to dietary recommendations. DESIGN: A systematic review of the medical literature was conducted. Six databases were searched from inception through March 2021: APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, Medline and PubMed. Only those studies referring to barriers and facilitators reported by CR participants were considered. Pilot and case report studies, non-peer-reviewed literature and studies published in a language other than English, Portuguese or Spanish were excluded. RESULTS: Data were extracted and analysed on the basis of individual-, provider- and system/environmental-level factors. Of 2083 initial citations, sixteen studies were included, with nine being qualitative and seven observational in design. From these, ten multi-level barriers and seven multi-level facilitators were identified. Dietary recommendations included developing healthy eating habits, transitioning to vegetarian-rich diets and increasing fish oil and n-3 intake. Only one study reported on all of the nutrition education programme factors recommended by the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this review is the first to summarise specific barriers and facilitators to recommendation adherence among CR participants. Few of the studies offered any conclusions regarding programme design that could facilitate improved dietary adherence practices. Future studies should aim to explore patient perspectives on the nutritional patterns and recommendations outlined in the Mediterranean Diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Diet, Vegetarian or Vegan diets and the Portfolio Diet.
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 | 0.016 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".