MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392552962 · doi:10.1111/jgs.18868

Goal setting among older adults starting mobile health cardiac rehabilitation in the <scp>RESILIENT</scp> trial

2024· article· en· W4392552962 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elianna Shwayder, John A. Dodson, Kelly Tellez, Camila Johanek, Samrachana Adhikari, Yuchen Meng, Antoinette Schoenthaler, Lee A. Jennings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNYU Grossman School of MedicineYork University
KeywordsMedicinemHealthRehabilitationGoal Attainment ScalingHealth careGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition that healthcare should align with individuals' health priorities; however, these priorities remain undefined, especially among older adults. The Rehabilitation Using Mobile Health for Older Adults with Ischemic Heart Disease in the Home Setting (RESILIENT) trial, designed to test the efficacy of mobile health cardiac rehabilitation (mHealth-CR) in an older cohort, also measures the attainment of participant-defined health outcome goals as a prespecified secondary endpoint. This study aimed to characterize the health priorities of older adults with ischemic heart disease (IHD) using goal attainment scaling-a technique for measuring individualized goal achievement-in a sample of 100 RESILIENT participants. METHODS: The ongoing RESILIENT trial randomizes patients aged ≥65 years with IHD (defined as hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome and/or coronary revascularization), to receive mHealth-CR or usual care. For the current study, we qualitatively coded baseline goal attainment scales from randomly selected batches of 20 participants to identify participants' cardiac rehabilitation outcome goals and their perceptions of barriers and action plans for goal attainment. We used a deductive framework (i.e., 4 value categories from Patient Priorities Care) and inductive approaches to code and analyze interviews until thematic saturation. RESULTS: This sample of 100 older adults set diverse health outcome goals. Most (54.6%) prioritized physical activity, fewer (17.1%) identified symptom management, fewer still (13.7%) prioritized health metrics, mostly comprised of weight loss goals (10.3%), and the fewest (<4%) were related to clinical metrics such as reducing cholesterol or preventing hospital readmission. Participants anticipated extrinsic (access to places to exercise, time) and intrinsic (non-cardiac pain, motivation) barriers. Action plans detailed strategies for exercise, motivation, accountability, and overcoming time constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Using goal attainment scaling, we elicited specific and measurable goals among older adults with IHD beginning cardiac rehabilitation. Priorities were predominantly functional, diverging from clinical metrics emphasized by clinicians and healthcare systems.

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)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→