Women-Focused Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery Around the World and Program Enablers to Support Broader Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Women are less likely than men to use cardiac rehabilitation (CR); thus, women-focused (W-F) CR was developed. Implementation of W-F CR globally was investigated, as well as barriers and enablers to its delivery. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a survey was administered to CR programs via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) from May to July, 2023. Potential respondents were identified via the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation's network. Results: A total of 223 responses were received from 52 of 111 countries (46.8% country response rate) in the world that have any CR, across all 6 World Health Organization regions. Thirty-three programs (14.8%) from 30 countries reported offering any W-F programming. Programs commonly did offer elements preferred by women and recommended, namely, the following: patient choice of session time (n = 151; 70.6%); invitations for informal care providers and/or partners to attend sessions (n = 121; 57.1%); CR staff that have expertise in women and heart diseases (n = 112; 53.3%); separate changerooms for women (n = 38; 52.8%); and discussion of CR referral with patients (n = 112; 52.1%). Main barriers to delivery of W-F exercise were physical resources (n = 33; 14.8%), space (n = 30; 13.5%), and staff time (n = 26; 11.7%) and expertise (n = 33; 10.3%). Main barriers to delivery of W-F education were human resources (n = 114; 51.1%), educational resources (n = 26; 11.7%), and expertise in the content (n = 74; 33.2%). Enablers of W-F education delivery were availability of materials, in multiple modalities, as well as educated staff and financial resources. Conclusions: Despite the benefits, W-F CR is not commonly offered globally. Considering the barriers and enablers identified, the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation is developing resources to expand delivery.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".