Barriers and Facilitators to Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Programmes for People with Lower Limb Amputation: A Survey of Clinical Practice in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study determines barriers and facilitators to including people with lower limb amputation (LLA) in cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes (CRPs). Method: Canadian CRP managers and exercise therapists were invited to complete a questionnaire. Results: There were 87 respondents. Of the 32 CRP managers, 65.6% reported that people with LLA were eligible for referral, but of these, 61.9% only accepted people with LLA and cardiac disease, and 38.1% only accepted them with ≥ 1 cardiovascular risk factor. CRP eligibility progressively decreased as mobility severity increased, with 94% of programmes accepting those with mild mobility deficits but only 48% accepting those with severe deficits. Among therapists in CRPs that accepted LLAs, 54.3% reported not having an LLA participant within the past three years. Among all responding therapists and managers who were also therapists ( n = 58), 43% lacked confidence in managing safety concerns, and 45%, 16%, and 7% lacked confidence in prescribing aerobic exercise to LLA with severe, moderate, and no mobility deficits respectively. There was a similar finding with prescribing resistance training. LLA-specific education had not been provided to any respondent within the past three years. The top barriers were lack of referrals (52.6%; 30) and lack of knowledge of the contraindications to exercise specific for LLA (43.1%; 31). Facilitators included the provision of a resistance-training tool kit (63.4%; 45), education on exercise safety (63.4%; 45), and indications for physician intervention/inspection (63.6%; 42). Conclusion: Most of the CRPs surveyed only accept people with LLA if they have co-existing cardiac disease or cardiovascular risk factors. Few people with LLA participate. Education on CRP delivery for LLAs is needed to improve therapists’ confidence and exercise safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".