Transitional Care from Hospital to Cardiac Rehabilitation During COVID-19: The Perspectives of Older Adults and Their Healthcare Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transitional care to cardiac rehabilitation during the pandemic was a complex process for older adults, with additional challenges for decision-making and participation. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of older adults and health providers on transitional care from the hospital to cardiac rehabilitation, focusing on patient participation in decision-making. A qualitative exploratory design was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 older adults and 6 healthcare providers. Document analysis and reflexive journaling were used to support triangulation of findings. Six themes emerged from the data, related to insufficient follow-up from providers, the importance of patients' emotional and psychological health and the support provided by family members, the need for information tailored to patients' needs and spaces for participation in decision-making, as well as challenges during COVID-19, including delayed medical procedures, rushed discharge and isolating hospital stays. The findings of this study indicated a number of potential gaps in the provision of transitional care services as reported by older adults who had a cardiovascular event, often during the first few weeks post hospital discharge.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".