A Hybrid Rehabilitation Program for Adults with Peripheral Artery Disease (HY-PAD): A Pre-Post Intervention Study to Assess Its Feasibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Supervised exercise programs improve walking impairment and quality of life (QoL) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, such programs are underutilized, due to their limited accessibility. A feasible and effective exercise program is needed. This study assessed the feasibility of a hybrid onsite and home-based exercise program (HY-PAD) and changes in walking capacity and PAD-specific QoL following HY-PAD. Methods Due to recruitment challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, this randomized controlled trial was modified to a pre–post intervention design that excluded the control group. Eligible patients with PAD were assigned to HY-PAD, consisting of 1-hour, supervised onsite exercise sessions 3 days per week for 4 weeks, followed by a home-based program with weekly 15-minute telephone calls to discuss exercise planning for 8 weeks. Feasibility was determined based on recruitment, adherence, and adverse events. Walking capacity was measured by a 6-minute walk test. PAD-specific QoL was assessed using the Walking Impairment Questionnaire. Results Of 24 patients enrolled (3 women, aged 70 ± 8 years), 21 (87.5%) completed HY-PAD. Twenty participants attended ≥ 87.5% of prescribed sessions. Two participants experienced adverse events (foot injury and limb ischemia). The 6-minute walk test distance (357 ± 105 vs 413 ± 53 meters, P = 0.021), and 2 domains of the questionnaires (walking speed: 38.4 ± 24.1 vs 60.6 ± 26.6 points and stair-climbing: 60.6 ± 29.4 vs 74.0 ± 23.1 points, both P < 0.001) increased significantly. Conclusions High attendance and low dropout rates support the feasibility of using HY-PAD, which was associated with improved walking capacity and PAD-specific QoL. Future studies are warranted to confirm its efficacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".