A multi-site mixed-method evaluation of ‘Cardiac College for Women’ implementation: perspectives of cardiac rehabilitation patients and providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Cardiac College for Women curriculum was developed to address the dearth of women-focused cardiac rehabilitation (CR) education. This study investigated: (1) patient utilization of the education; (2) acceptability and applicability of the education; as well as (3) patient and CR providers’ experiences implementing it. This was a multi-site, mixed-methods study. After baseline assessments at an academic CR program in two Canadian provinces, the 12 weekly 30 min structured in-person group education sessions were led by staff in the relevant discipline, with supporting online videos and written materials. Women reported their engagement with the education in weekly diaries, and completed a survey post-program. Semi-structured virtual interviews were held with willing participants and staff delivering the intervention. Transcripts were analyzed concurrently by two researchers independently via NVIVO using text condensation, followed by consensus reconciliation and multi-source validation. Forty patients participated in the women-focused education program, with 28 completing weekly diaries and 36 post-intervention surveys. Participants attended 80% of sessions (67%–89%). They spent an average of 30 min/week engaging additionally with the online education, with 83% rating the weekly content applicable (73%–100%). Overall acceptability was rated 4.3 ± 1.7/5. Twelve patients and 5 staff participated in interviews. Four themes were identified: contextual considerations, staffing and implementation issues, valued aspects, and suggestions for improvement. In conclusion, Cardiac College for Women was established as highly acceptable and applicable to patients, supporting their self-management. The women-specific CR education materials were also established as readily implementable by CR staff.
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 | 0.033 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".