MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387401043 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2023-bacpr.3

4 Cardio-oncology and home-based, multimodal rehabilitation programmes: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4387401043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Talty, R. J. MORRIS, Carolyn Deighan, Sharon Cameron, Louise Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLPsychological interventionMedicineMEDLINEModalitiesRehabilitationSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryInclusion (mineral)Physical therapyRandomized controlled trialNursingPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Home-based, multimodal, self-management interventions (HMSIs) have been evidenced to effectively promote recovery for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients. Given the cardiotoxic effects of certain cancer treatment, research and guidelines have increasingly recommended that HMSIs based on models of CR are adapted for cancer patients. Yet, it is unclear if empirically-based, cardio-oncology-informed HMSIs are available. <h3>Aim</h3> This scoping review investigates cancer-related HMSIs by assessing their remit, evidence-base, degree of implementation and integration of CR principles. <h3>Methods</h3> The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Guidelines. AMED, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycInfo databases were searched for articles from January 2010 to January 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised articles based on interventions meeting the criteria: (a) home-/web-based (b) self-management (c) multimodal (targeting two or more modalities such as exercise, nutrition, or psychological wellbeing). The literature search and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results (cross-referenced to ensure inter-rater consistency) were verified by a third reviewer. <h3>Results</h3> The initial search produced 302 articles, screened and assessed for eligibility . Thirty-eight articles, representing 28 interventions, were included in the scoping review. Thirteen were based in the US and Canada, only 2 in the UK. There was significant variation in the research underpinning the interventions: while 25% had associated randomised controlled trials, 57% were only outlined in protocols and pilot feasibility studies. Few were generalisable to all cancer patients, as many focused on one specific cancer type or topic. No intervention targeted the effects of cardio-toxicity recommended by cardio-oncology literature and guidelines. <h3>Conclusion</h3> With increasing risks of cardiotoxicity and a lack of evidence-based HMSIs available for cancer patients (particularly in the UK), there is an opportunity for CR to expand to meet the needs of those living with and beyond cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207