Results of a Digital Multimodal Motivational and Educational Program as Follow-Up Care for Former Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital interventions are promising additions for both usual care and rehabilitation. Evidence and studies for the latter, however, are still rare. Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the app/web-based patient education program called "mebix" (previously called "Vision 2 - Gesundes Herz") regarding its effectiveness in relation to the parameters of disease-specific quality of life (HeartQoL), cardiovascular risk profile (Cardiovascular Risk Management [CARRISMA]), and prognostic estimation of early retirement (Screening instrument work and occupation [SIBAR]) in 190 participants from a cardiological rehabilitation clinic. Methods: To evaluate mebix, 354 patients from the Roderbirken Clinic of the German Pension Insurance Rhineland (Germany) with a coronary heart diesase were recruited and randomized either to the intervention group (using mebix postrehabiliation for up to 12 months) or the control group (receiving standard care). The data collection took place at the end of inpatient rehabilitation (t0), as well as 6 months (t1) and 12 months (t2) after the end of rehabilitation. Analyses of variance are used to assess the overall significance of difference in outcome parameters between groups and over time. Results: The primary endpoint of disease-related quality of life shows a significant improvement of 7.35 points over the course of the intervention that is also more pronounced in the intervention group. Similarly, the 10-year risk of cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction showed significant improvements in the cardiovascular risk profile over time and between groups, indicating better results in the intervention group (ie, a reduction of -1.59 and -5.03, respectively). Secondary outcomes like the body weight and cholesterol levels were significantly reduced in the intervention group, also in comparison with the control group. In addition, the SIBAR was significantly lower/better at the end of the observation period than at the beginning of the observation for both groups. Conclusions: Overall, the digital training program represents an effective follow-up offer after rehabilitation that could be incorporated into standard care to further improve disease-related quality of life and cardiovascular risk profiles.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".