MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402586502 · doi:10.1097/hcr.0000000000000899

Remote Exercise Engagement Among Individuals With Cardiovascular Disease

2024· review· en· W4402586502 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Paula Delgado Bomtempo Batalha, Emilia Main, Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseasePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature regarding barriers and facilitators to remote exercise among individuals with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). REVIEW METHODS: Six databases were searched (inception-December 2023). Studies including barriers and facilitators for remote exercise reported by individuals living with CVD were considered. Quality was rated using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT). Results were synthesized following a thematic analysis approach. Characteristics of interventions were reported using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). SUMMARY: From an initial pool of 8543 records, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 13 were qualitative studies, with individual interviews being the most frequent data extraction method. Nine studies received 5/5 MMAT scores (ie, high quality). Twelve studies reported remote exercise interventions, mostly delivered within cardiac rehabilitation, by physiotherapists, nurses, and dietitians, predominantly via telephone calls or videoconferences, with only one study incorporating text messages. Five key themes influencing remote exercise interventions were identified: technology (encompassing access and literacy, self-monitoring/motivation, and security concerns), individual health considerations (health/personal aspects and coronavirus disease-2019), social factors (support from health care team and family/social support), environment (facilities), and logistical factors (time and displacement). Several themes served as both facilitators and barriers. Key insights for remote exercise interventions included mobile accessibility, interactive chat sessions, minimal click interactions, short sessions, personalized feedback, and flexible timing. Results emphasize the importance of promoting social interaction and support between participants and health care teams to mitigate barriers and enhance facilitators in remote exercise interventions for individuals with CVD.

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)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and PreventionSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207