Rehabilitation needs and workforce affiliation among implantable cardioverter recipients: development and pilot results of a nationwide patient-reported experience and outcome measure (ReWork)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Despite the increasing prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), limited knowledge exists on ICD recipients' rehabilitation needs and workforce affiliation. No nationwide patient-reported data has been collected on this topic. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs/PROMs) tailored to ICD recipients, named ReWork. METHODS AND RESULTS: Instrument development involved literature review, expert interviews and focus groups for conceptualization. Validation included expert panel review, a pilot survey, cognitive interviews and test-retest analyses. Established scales were used for PROM components.The final ReWork instrument comprises 47 items across eight themes: (i) background information, (ii) information, (iii) relatives, (iv) care services, (v) working life, (vi) social and economic conditions, (vii) daily life and (viii) health and well-being. Of 200 randomly selected ICD recipients for the pilot survey, 184 were eligible, and 77% responded. The instrument demonstrated high feasibility (mean completion time: 18.5 min; low item non-response) and strong reliability, with 91% of items showing substantial to perfect agreement in test-retest analyses. Preliminary findings identified several informational deficits, including 'where to meet others with ICDs' (49%) and 'psychological reactions' (41%). Several unmet healthcare needs existed, e.g. 'counseling on sex and intimacy' (17%), 'peer support' (14%) and 'physical training' (14%). Among ICD recipients employed at implantation, a considerable proportion reported work-related changes influenced by health-related challenges. CONCLUSION: The ReWork instrument is a reliable and feasible tool that, once distributed to a larger population, will generate unique knowledge to guide rehabilitation and support workforce affiliation among ICD recipients. REGISTRATION: Capital Region of Denmark, P-2019-051.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".