Women’s Cardiovascular Health and Cardiac Rehabilitation: a Priority-setting Partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of preventable deaths in Canadian women. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a risk reduction program that can enhance and maintain cardiovascular health through individualized programming. Participation can reduce future events by up to 50%. However, women are less likely to access CR than men. A collaborative research agenda is needed to address women's priorities for CR, incorporating the input of people with lived and living experience (PWLLE), whose needs are often left unmet. The objective of this study was to engage PWLLE of CVD and clinicians in Canada to identify and prioritize research questions about CR for women. Methods: James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was conducted. An initial survey collected questions about women's CR from PWLLE and clinicians. In a second survey, PWLLE and clinicians shortlisted the questions. The questions were prioritized at in-person workshop. Results: The first survey collected 1347 questions from 172 respondents: 74.3% women with lived experience of cardiovascular condition(s) and/or procedure(s), 10.5% family, friends, caregivers, and 23.4% clinicians. Out-of-scope submissions were removed. The remaining 715 were grouped and summarized, resulting in 52 summary questions. There were 250 responses to the second survey, which was used to create a shortlist of 25 questions. At the workshop, PWLLE and clinicians (n = 22) identified the top 10 priorities namely, individualization; women-only CR; follow-up; referral criteria; education; optimization; nutritional counselling; rural access; and exercise safety/progression. Conclusion: These priorities were established through PWLLE-clinician consensus and provide a framework for future CR research in women.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".