Patient and Family Perspectives on Early Mobilization in Acute Cardiac Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence indicates that engaging family members in early mobilization may benefit both patients and family members. However, little is known about the effect of patient and family-member experience and perspectives on mobilization in acute cardiac care. Our goal was to assess the perspectives and experience of patients and their family members regarding early mobilization in acute cardiac care, to better understand patient-related barriers to mobilization and assist in the development of mobilization strategies that increase family-member engagement in care. METHODS: Patient and family-member surveys were developed to assess attitudes and knowledge about mobilization, family-members' roles in providing care, and mobilization care the patients received. Surveys were distributed to patients and their family members over a 4-month period. RESULTS: A total of 101 participants completed the survey (patients, n = 78; family members, n = 23). Most patients (n = 54; 69.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that early mobilization should be routinely performed. Of 72 patients who underwent early mobilization, 60 (83.3%) felt that mobilization helped their recovery. The majority of family members were interested in being involved with mobilization (n = 19; 82.6%). One quarter of family members felt that mobilizing their relatives too soon after admission was potentially dangerous (n = 6; 26.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients wish to be mobilized early after admission, and family members want to participate in mobilization efforts. These findings should inform efforts to overcome patient- and family-related barriers to mobilization.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".