MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387002908 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2023.07.016

Women’s Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers: Results of the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation’s First Global Assessment

2023· article· en· W4387002908 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi, Won‐Seok Kim, Seungwoo Cha, Raghdah Aljehani, Mayara Moura Alves da Cruz, Luiz Carlos Marques Vanderlei, Garyfallia Pepera, Xia Liu, Zhimin Xu, L Maskhulia, Elio Venturini, Hung‐Jui Chuang, Danielle Aparecida Gomes Pereira, Patrícia Fernandes Trevizan, Evangelia Kouidi, Ladislav Baťalík, Mahdieh Ghanbari-Firoozabadi, Ivana Burazor, Mariya Jiandani, Ling Zhang, Nidal Tourkmani, Sherry L. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPortugueseGerontologyFamily medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs are underutilized globally, especially by women. In this study we investigated sex differences in CR barriers across all world regions, to our knowledge for the first time, the characteristics associated with greater barriers in women, and women's greatest barriers according to enrollment status. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the English, Simplified Chinese, Arabic, Portuguese, or Korean versions of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale was administered to CR-indicated patients globally via Qualtrics from October 2021 to March 2023. Members of the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation community facilitated participant recruitment. Mitigation strategies were provided and rated. RESULTS: Participants were 2163 patients from 16 countries across all 6 World Health Organization regions; 916 (42.3%) were women. Women did not report significantly greater total barriers overall, but did in 2 regions (Americas, Western Pacific) and men in 1 (Eastern Mediterranean; all P < 0.001). Women's barriers were greatest in the Western Pacific (2.6 ± 0.4/5) and South East Asian (2.5 ± 0.9) regions (P < 0.001), with lack of CR awareness as the greatest barrier in both. Women who were unemployed reported significantly greater barriers than those not (P < 0.001). Among nonenrolled referred women, the greatest barriers were not knowing about CR, not being contacted by the program, cost, and finding exercise tiring or painful. Among enrolled women, the greatest barriers to session adherence were distance, transportation, and family responsibilities. Mitigation strategies were rated as very helpful (4.2 ± 0.7/5). CONCLUSIONS: CR barriers-men's and women's-vary significantly according to region, necessitating tailored approaches to mitigation. Efforts should be made to mitigate unemployed women's barriers in particular.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207