Sex differences in cardiac rehabilitation barriers among non-enrollees in the context of lower gender equality: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), it remains under-utilized, particularly by women. This study compared CR barriers between non-enrolling men and women in Iran, which has among the lowest gender equality globally. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, CR barriers were assessed via phone interview in phase II non-attenders from March 2017 to February 2018 with the Persian version of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS-P). T-tests were used to compare scores, with each of 18 barriers scored out of 5, between men and women. RESULTS: 357 (33.9%) of the sample of 1053 were women, and they were older, less educated and less often employed than men. Total mean CRBS scores were significantly greater in women (2.37 ± 0.37) than men (2.29 ± 0.35; effect size[ES] = 0.08, confidence interval[CI]: 0.03-0.13; p < 0.001). The top CR barriers among women were cost (3.35; ES = 0.40, CI:0.23-0.56; P < 0.001), transportation problems (3.24; ES = 0.41, CI:0.25-0.58; P < 0.001), distance (3.21; ES = 0.31, CI:0.15-0.48; P < 0.001), comorbidities (2.97; ES = 0.49, CI:0.34-0.64; P < 0.001), low energy (2.41; ES = 0.29, CI:0.18-0.41; P < 0.001), finding exercise as tiring or painful (2.22; ES = 0.11, CI:0.02-0.21; P = 0.018), and older age (2.27; ES = 0.18, CI:0.07-0.28; P = 0.001). Men rated "already exercise at home or in community" (2.69; ES = 0.23, CI:0.1-0.36; P = 0.001), time constraints (2.18; ES = 0.15, CI:0.07-0.23; P < 0.001) and work responsibilities (2.24; ES = 0.16, CI:0.07-0.25; P = 0.001) as greater CR barriers than women. CONCLUSION: Women had greater barriers to CR participation than men. CR programs should be modified to address women's needs. Home-based CR tailored to women's exercise needs and preferences should be considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".