MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Barriers to cardiac rehabilitation and their association with hospital readmission in patients with heart failure

2025· article· en· W4408303456 on OpenAlex
Ana Carla Carvalho, Raphaela V. Groehs, Carolina Pereira, Vivian Lavor Soares, Tarsila Perez Mota, Sherry L. Grace, Luciana Diniz Nagem Janot de Matos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEinstein (São Paulo) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteYork UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureRehabilitationMedicineHospital readmissionAssociation (psychology)Emergency medicineInternal medicinePhysical therapyCardiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High rehospitalization rates and limited access to cardiac rehabilitation characterize heart failure in South America. This study highlights the significant barriers faced by patients, including lack of energy, awareness, and accessibility. Despite these challenges, professional exercise supervision has reduced readmission rates by more than 50%, underscoring its importance. ■ Barriers to rehabilitation: high inactivity rates (88.4%) and significant barriers, such as fatigue and lack of awareness, hinder recovery. ■ Professional supervision: only 1% of patients were enrolled in formal cardiac rehabilitation; however, those who received professional supervision experienced lower readmission rates (14.6% versus 35.1%). ■ Systematic gaps: addressing systemic gaps, such as coverage and referral to rehabilitation programs, is critical for improving patient outcomes and reducing rehospitalization rates. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the barriers to cardiac rehabilitation in inpatients with heart failure, the use of formal exercise supervision, and its relationship to readmissions. METHODS: This study was a prospective, observational design. The Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale, the Readiness Scale focusing on physical activity, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire were administered before hospital discharge. Participants were followed up via telephone at 30- and 90-days post-discharge, during which the International Physical Activity Questionnaire was readministered, and formal exercise supervision and readmission rates were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 95 patients who provided consent, 88.4% were inactive. A total of 85 (89.5%) were retained at the 30-day follow-up, and 86 (90.5%) patients at the 90-day follow-up; 2 patients died. The mean total Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale score was 2.3±6.5 (out of 5), with the highest item scores for lack of energy, prior exercise, lack of awareness, distance, and exercise-related pain/fatigue. Only one participant was enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation. Nearly half had engaged in professional exercise (n=48, 56.5% at 30 days and n=45, 52.3% at 90 days) at both follow-ups. At 30 days, 25.8% of the patients were readmitted, and 25.5% were readmitted at 90 days. Participants who received professional exercise supervision within 30 days had significantly fewer readmissions (n=7, 14.6%) than those who did not (n=13, 35.1%; p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Barriers to cardiac rehabilitation are high among patients with heart failure. Despite access to professional exercise training, most participants remain insufficiently active. Systematic referral for cardiac rehabilitation and advocacy for coverage could mitigate poor self-management and, ultimately, reduce high readmission rates. REGISTRY OF CLINICAL TRIALS: NCT03385837.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it