Enhancing cardiovascular patients’ knowledge of air pollution: a pilot study evaluating the impact of an educational intervention in cardiac rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Air pollution poses significant risks to cardiovascular health, yet patients often lack comprehensive knowledge about its impact and mitigation strategies. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention within a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) context in enhancing patients’ understanding of air pollution and its cardiovascular effects. Methods A pre-post pilot study was conducted from February 2021 to June 2021 at the Gregorio Marañón University General Hospital, Madrid, Spain. A total of 43 patients with cardiovascular disease attending CR were enrolled. Participants received a 1-h educational intervention delivered either in-person or online, focusing on the effects of air pollution and strategies to reduce exposure. Pre- and post-intervention questionnaires assessed participants’ knowledge and perceptions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze changes in awareness and understanding. Results Initially, participants demonstrated a high level of awareness about the health impacts of air pollution, with 100% acknowledging its effects on health. However, detailed knowledge about specific concepts such as the Air Quality Index (AQI) and particulate matter (PM2.5) was limited. Post-intervention, there was a significant increase in knowledge, with familiarity with AQI rising from 61% to 81% (p = 0.02) and understanding of PM2.5 improving from 28% to 58% (p = 0.01). This indicates that the educational intervention effectively bridged gaps in understanding and reinforced the importance of environmental factors in cardiovascular health management. Discussion The pilot study highlights the critical role of targeted education in improving patient awareness and knowledge about air pollution. The significant improvement in understanding key concepts underscores the need for broader educational initiatives that extend beyond CR programs. Future research should explore the impact of such interventions on long-term health outcomes and consider expanding educational efforts to include healthcare providers and family members.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".