The association of frailty on cardiac rehabilitation goal achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Frailty is common among patients entering cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Frailty is associated with poor health outcomes; however, it is unclear if frailty influences achieving goals in CR. Methods We report a secondary analysis of participants who were referred to an exercise and education-based CR program from 2005 to 2015. Frailty was measured by a 25-item accumulation of deficits frailty index (FI) ranging from 0 to 1; higher scores indicate higher frailty. Participants were categorized by admission frailty levels (FI scores: < 0.20, 0.20–0.29, 0.30–0.39, > 0.40). CR goals were determined with shared decision-making between CR staff and the patients. We conducted logistic regression analyses to examine the odds of goal attainment by CR completion, adjusting for age, sex, education, marital status, and referring diagnosis. Analyses were performed using baseline frailty as a categorical and continuous outcome, and frailty change as a continuous outcome in separate models. Results Of 759 eligible participants (age: 59.5 ± 9.8, 24% female), 607 (80%) participants achieved a CR goal at graduation. CR goals were categorized into similar themes: control or lose weight ( n = 381, 50%), improve physical activity behaviour and fitness ( n = 228, 30%), and improve cardiovascular profile ( n = 150, 20%). Compared to the most severe frailty group (FI >0.40), lower levels of frailty at baseline were associated with achieving a goal at CR completion [FI < 0.20: OR = 4.733 (95% CI: 2.197, 10.194), p < .001; FI 0.20–0.29: OR = 2.116 (1.269–3.528), p = .004]. Every 1% increase in the FI was associated with a 3.5% reduction in the odds of achieving a CR goal [OR = 0.965 (0.95, 0.979), p < .001]. Participants who reduced their frailty by a minimally clinically important difference of at least 0.03 ( n = 209, 27.5%) were twice as likely to achieve their CR goal [OR = 2.111 (1.262, 3.532), p = .004] than participants who increased their frailty by at least 0.03 ( n = 82, 10.8%). Every 1% improvement in the FI from baseline to follow up was associated with a 2.7% increase in the likelihood of CR goal achievement [OR = 1.027 (1.005, 1.048), p = .014]. Conclusion Lower admission frailty was associated with a greater likelihood of achieving CR goals. Frailty improvements were associated with CR goal achievement, highlighting the influence of frailty on goal attainment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".