Abstract 4366303: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes of a Two-group Randomized Controlled Pilot of a Gentle Yoga Intervention for Older Adults Post-Phase II Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Maintaining physical activity (PA) is essential to preserve cardiac health in older patients. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is commonly prescribed following acute cardiac events, and continued PA outside of CR is recommended. Yet, older cardiac patients face challenges with PA. Yoga can improve psychological, cognitive, and physical health outcomes, but the feasibility and effectiveness of online-based yoga for older cardiac patients remains unknown. Objectives: We examined feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of a gentle yoga program on psychological, cognitive, and physical health in older (≥ 65 years) cardiac patients who completed CR. Methods: This was a 2-group randomized controlled (yoga vs control) pilot study conducted using mixed methods in older (N = 37; 74±6 years) cardiac patients. After randomization, the yoga group received online yoga twice/week for 12 weeks whereas the control group maintained usual care. Quantitative data included feasibility outcomes, retention, attendance, and satisfaction rates; and effectiveness outcomes: depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), stress (Perceived Stress Scale-10), maintenance self-efficacy (Maintenance self-efficacy-4), cognitive health (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), PA levels (ActiGraph), sleep parameters (ActiGraph, sleep diary, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Scale), balance (Xsens), and muscle strength (handheld-dynamometry). Independent and paired t-tests with effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were used for analysis. Qualitative data were collected at 12 weeks and analyzed using a descriptive content analysis approach. Results: Retention, attendance, and satisfaction rates were 84%, 89%, and 91%, respectively. We found significantly greater hip muscle strength in the yoga group compared to the control group (22.8 ± 6.9 vs. 17.2 ± 6.2, d = .78, p = .038) after 12 weeks. Compared to baseline, improvements in maintenance self-efficacy (11.9 ± 1.1 vs. 13.3 ± 2.1, d ≥ .5, p = .038) and cognitive function (delayed recall: 3.9 ± 0.8 vs. 4.9 ± 0.3, d ≥ .5, p = .002) were observed only in the yoga group. Qualitative analysis revealed 6 themes and 20 categories, identifying acceptability, therapeutic benefits, and suggestions for future studies. Conclusion: The online yoga intervention is feasible, acceptable, and shows preliminary effects. A larger trial of web-based PA intervention for older cardiac patients with longer follow-up is warranted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".