Determinants of Physical Activity in the Cardiac Population: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of physical activity is a critical contributing risk factor to cardiovascular disease. Hence, regular physical activity is a mainstay in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Despite the extensive promotion of physical activity in both primary and secondary prevention programs, including cardiac rehabilitation, physical activity levels in the cardiac population remain low. Therefore, it is crucial to understand critical determinants that influence physical activity behavior. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to deliver a systematic review of studies with collated observational data exploring the association between determinants and physical activity behavior in the target population. These new insights inform the design of future interventions targeted at lasting heart-healthy physical activity behavior in the cardiac population. METHODS: Primary studies with observational quantitative data on determinants and their association with physical activity behavior in the cardiac population will be included. Information on relevant primary studies will be retrieved from various databases, including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science Core Collection. Six reviewers will independently double-screen articles. Studies will be selected according to the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted and entered into suitable worksheets. The US-based National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Study Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Studies will be used to assess the quality of all eligible primary studies. The results will be presented in a descriptive and narrative synthesis. If the type and quality of data are suitable, meta-analyses will be conducted. Study reporting will follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. RESULTS: Data collection started in September 2020, and the literature search was updated in July 2021. Data synthesis is ongoing, and the literature search will be updated in October 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This review will be valuable to relevant stakeholders, including clinicians and health care professionals, intervention developers, and decision makers in health care. It lays a comprehensive foundation for understanding the determinants of physical activity to inform the design of secondary prevention interventions relevant to the cardiac population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020206637; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=206637. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/39188.
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 | 0.085 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.014 |
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".