A multi-site prospective controlled pilot evaluation of Cardiac College for Women in the cardiac rehabilitation setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the limited efficacy of women-focused educational materials within supervised cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for the first time when compared to standard co-educational CR. METHODS: A multi-site, prospective, pilot study with blinded outcome assessment was conducted at two Canadian CR programs. At intake, participants selected women-only CR with women-focused education (12 weeks) or a standard co-educational program (16 weeks). Both were comprehensive programs, with one education session/week. Outcomes were disease-related knowledge, functional capacity, quality of life, and heart-health behaviours. RESULTS: Of 114 women approached, 62 (54.4 %) consented. Forty elected the women-only CR program. Pre-CR medication adherence was high. Participants attended approximately 60 % of sessions; 55 (88.7 %) were retained at follow-up. Significant improvements in knowledge, quality of life, and functional capacity were observed in both groups (all p < .05). With adjustment for pre-CR scores, participants in women-only CR exhibited significantly greater improvements in knowledge (p < .05) and adherence to the Mediterranean diet (p = .04) post-program compared to control participants. CONCLUSION: Results support of the utility of this women-focused education in the CR setting. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Integrating women-focused education in CR can enhance health outcomes and address specific needs of female patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".