Cardiac Rehabilitation Facebook Intervention: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adherence to cardiac rehabilitation is low. Social media has been used to improve motivation and cardiac rehabilitation completion, but the authors did not find Facebook interventions for these purposes in the literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Facebook Intervention (Chat) for affecting changes in exercise motivation and need satisfaction and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: The Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3 and Psychological Need Satisfaction for Exercise were used to measure motivation and need satisfaction (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) before and after the Chat intervention. To support need satisfaction, the intervention included educational posts, supportive posts, and interaction with peers. The feasibility measures included recruitment, engagement, and acceptability. Groups were compared using analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Paired t tests were used to assess motivation and need satisfaction change, and Pearson or Spearman correlations were used for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants were lost to follow-up and 22 were included in the analysis. Higher motivation at intake (relative autonomy index 0.53, 95% CI 0.14-0.78; P=.01) and change in need satisfaction-autonomy (relative autonomy index 0.61, 95% CI 0.09-0.87; P=.02) were associated with more completed sessions. No between-group differences were found. Engagement included "likes" (n=210) and "hits" (n=157). For acceptability, mean scores on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (quite a bit) Likert scale for feeling supported and in touch with providers were 4.6 and 4.4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of the Chat group was high; however, intervention feasibility could not be determined due to the small sample size. Those with greater motivation at intake completed more sessions, indicating its importance in cardiac rehabilitation completion. Despite challenges with recruitment and engagement, important lessons were learned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02971813; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02971813. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.7554.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".