What are the Needs of People Living in Remote Areas About the Essential Components of a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an effective intervention to support patients in achieving their health objectives and in decreasing their risk of suffering from another myocardial infarction (MI). However, in several remote areas, no cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP) exists to support patients having experienced an MI. Before the creation of an intervention CRP adapted to patients living in these areas, it is essential to describe patients and healthcare professionals' needs regarding cardiac rehabilitation care. Objective: This study describes the needs of remote patients and healthcare professionals for the essential components in a CR program following myocardial infarction and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Methods: A qualitative formative research study was conducted involving 10 men, 6 women, and 4 family physicians. Data were collected through in-depth individual interviews and one focus group. Results: Results show that patients who have suffered an MI have multiple unmet needs. This gap may be due to the variability in follow-ups by healthcare professionals. In the absence of a cardiac rehabilitation program, these patients must adapt quickly to their new health condition. Discussion and conclusion: It is critical that the needs of patients living in remote areas are better addressed in cardiac rehabilitation. To do this, it is essential to create a CRP that is tailored to the needs of both patients and professionals, thus providing patient-centered care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".