Impact of vaccination education in cardiac rehabilitation on attitudes and knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical guidelines recommend influenza vaccination for cardiac patients, and COVID-19 vaccination is also beneficial given their increased risk. Patient education regarding vaccination was developed for cardiac rehabilitation (CR); impact on knowledge and attitudes were evaluated. A single-group pre-post design was applied at a Spanish CR program in early 2022. After baseline assessment, a nurse delivered the 40-minute group education. Knowledge and attitudes were re-assessed. Sixty-one (72%) of the 85 participants were vaccinated for influenza, and 40 (47%) for pneumococcus. Most participants perceived vaccines were important, and that the COVID-19 vaccine specifically was important, with three-quarters not influenced by vaccine myths/misinformation. The education intervention resulted in significant improvements in perceptions of the importance of vaccines (Hake's index 69%), understanding of myths (48%), knowledge of the different types of COVID vaccines (92%), and when they should be vaccinated. Vaccination rates are low despite their importance; while further research is needed, education in the CR setting could promote greater uptake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".