Exploring Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Across Health Literacy Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the barriers to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation across individuals with different levels of health literacy. A cross-sectional study was conducted among individuals referred to a CR program. Participants completed online surveys assessing CR barriers using the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale and health literacy using the Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool. Descriptive statistics and comparisons were performed. Among 881 individuals invited, 400 responded, with varying levels of health literacy: 22(6%) limited, 305(76%) marginal, and 72(18%) adequate. The greatest barriers included family responsibilities, lack of energy, and a preference for managing health alone. However, distinct patterns emerged based on health literacy levels, with individuals citing different barriers. Although no significant differences were observed in CR barriers based on health literacy, understanding individual-specific challenges is crucial for intervention development. Addressing common barriers such as family responsibilities and logistical challenges could enhance CR engagement and adherence. [ HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice . 2025;9(2):e72–e77. ]
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".