Technology‐bAsed cardiac rehabilitation therapy (TaCT) for women: Intervention implementability, usability, engagement and acceptability in a middle‐income setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), women are under-represented, especially in lower-income settings. Technology may be leveraged to tailor CR to better engage women, but this has never been tested in a middle-income country. This study assessed the implementability, usability, engagement, and acceptability of Technology-bAsed Cardiac rehabilitation Therapy (TaCT) in women with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a middle-income country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from intervention arm participants in a randomized trial was analyzed. The trial was undertaken in the outpatient cardiology department of a private tertiary care center in India. The 6-month CR intervention was delivered via an app (individualized secondary prevention recommendations), website (patient education), WhatsApp (standardized behavior change promotion messages, yoga/relaxation video, support chat), and bi-weekly one-on-one phone calls with a nurse trainee (risk factor management). At the end of the intervention, participants' engagement, usability (System Usability Scale), and, acceptability (/5) of the program were evaluated using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 50 women were randomized to intervention; one died and 49 (100%) were retained. Some participants faced challenges such as internet availability issues and technical glitches. There were no adverse events. Engagement was high for calls (mean = 11.6 ± 1.4/12), WhatsApp messages (mean = 34.2 ± 4.6/36 read) the website (74-151 hits/education page), and the mobile app (7.2 ± 4.2 times/patient); there were no group chat messages. Usability was rated as "excellent" (94.7 ± 5.2/100). Acceptability with the overall intervention was high (means ≥4.5/5), but was lower for information understandability, including diet and exercise recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable implementability and acceptability, as well as excellent usability and engagement with TaCT were established. Along with favorable outcome results, this suggests that TaCT may serve as a valuable intervention to improve women's access and adherence to CR in resource-constrained environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".