Co-designing a cardiac rehabilitation program with knowledge users for patients with cardiovascular disease from a remote area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> <bold>Background: </bold>Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs are recognized as effective in reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease. However, cardiac rehabilitation programs are offered inequitably across regions, and are available in less than 15% of remote areas worldwide. The main goal of this study was to design a CR program adapted to the contexts of remote areas, in order to improve the service offer for patients. <bold>Methods: </bold>We used an iterative user-centered design approach to understand the user context and services offered in cardiac rehabilitation in remote areas. We conducted two co-design processes in two remote regions with knowledge users. Two advisory committees were created in each of these regions, comprising managers (n = 6), healthcare professionals (n = 12) and patients (n = 2). We used the guidelines of an operational model specific to cardiac rehabilitation to conceptualize data collection for the development of the cardiac rehabilitation program. We conducted four cycles of co-design with each of the committees to develop the cardiac rehabilitation program. Qualitative data were analyzed iteratively after each cycle. <bold>Results: </bold>The co-design process led to the development of a prototype cardiac rehabilitation program that is similar in both regions, based on a six-phase care and service trajectory contextualized to remote regions. Participants made structural changes to phases 0, 2, 3 and 4 in order to overcome staffing shortages in remote areas. These changes make it possible to decentralize cardiac rehabilitation expertise away from specialized centers, to ensure equity of service across the territory. Therapeutic patient education was integrated into phase 4 to meet patients' needs. Participants suggested that three follow-up offerings could come from nursing services to increase access to the cardiac rehabilitation program (primary care, home care, special chronic disease programs) in patients' home communities. <bold>Conclusion: </bold>The co-design process enables us to meet the needs of remote regions in program development. This final program can be the subject of future implementation research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".