Abstract P215: A Qualitative Exploration Of Barriers And Facilitators To A Cardiac Rehabilitation-based Weight Loss Program For Patients With Atrial Fibrillation And Obesity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs are ideal treatment settings for atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factor management, yet few CR curricula include a behavioral weight loss treatment (BWLT) component for patients with comorbid obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ). Aim: To identify perceived barriers, facilitators, and preferences regarding CR with added BWLT among patients with AF and obesity using a qualitative descriptive approach. Methods: Patients (18+) with paroxysmal or persistent AF and obesity were recruited from a Canadian AF clinic. Patients completed questionnaires assessing socio-demographic variables and participated in semi-structured interviews to elicit their potential barriers, facilitators, and preferences regarding a proposed 12-week CR+BWLT program (i.e., twice-weekly supervised exercise, risk factor management, and weekly group-based cognitive-behavioral weight management support). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Conventional content analysis was used to derive themes from qualitative data. Results: Twenty patients (9 women; 63±12 years; BMI=35.50±6.00 kg/m 2 ) participated. Data were categorized to describe patients' barriers, facilitators, and preferences/perspectives (Figure 1). Four overarching themes emerged from the categories: 1) frustration with weight management; 2) AF symptoms are manageable; 3) AF information needs; and 4) desire for program flexibility. Conclusion & Future Directions: The proposal to offer BWLT alongside CR was acceptable to patients with AF and obesity, with most reporting few barriers to participating. The results will inform AF-specific adaptations to an established BWLT (e.g., modules on AF pathophysiology and exercise recommendations). The AF-adapted BWLT will be piloted in the target population prior to testing the full intervention package in a randomized controlled trial. The novel combination of CR+BWLT, tailored to an AF population, has potential to improve AF management and outcomes for patients with comorbid obesity.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".