Patient and practitioner perspectives on reducing sedentary behavior at an exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To understand the awareness of sedentary behavior, as well as the perceived facilitators and barriers to reducing sedentary behaviors from the perspectives of patients undertaking an exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program, and from staff involved in supporting patient self-management. Materials and methods: A qualitative study was conducted at a large cardiac rehabilitation program in a metropolitan city in Canada. Guided by an ecological framework, semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with 15 patients, and in two focus groups with six staff. Transcribed interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis. Results: Patients placed little importance on reducing sedentary behavior as they were unconvinced of the health benefits, did not perceive themselves to be sedentary, or associated such behaviors with enjoyment and relaxation. While staff were aware of the risks, they saw them as less critical than other health behaviors. Intrapersonal factors (physical and psychosocial health) and environment factors (the information environment, socio-cultural factors) within leisure time, the home, and work, influenced sedentary behavior. Conclusions: While these findings require further testing, future interventions may be effective if aimed at increasing awareness of the health benefits of reducing sedentary behavior, utilizing existing behavior change strategies, and using a participatory approach to tailor strategies to patients.Implications for rehabilitationCardiac rehabilitation programs effectively use exercise promotion to improve the health of people with established cardiovascular disease.As sedentary lifestyles become more prevalent, recommendations to reduce the health risks of prolonged sedentary behavior that are specific to the characteristics and prognostic profiles of cardiac rehabilitation patients are needed.Cardiac rehabilitation programs must consider extending existing behavior change strategies utilized for exercise promotion towards addressing sedentary behaviors in order to be effective at reducing the sedentary time of patients.A participatory approach involving both patients and health professionals can support patients in reducing their sedentary behavior by providing a supportive environment for behavior change, increasing awareness and understanding of risks, discussing the feasibility of potential strategies, and setting achievable and actionable goals. Cardiac rehabilitation programs effectively use exercise promotion to improve the health of people with established cardiovascular disease. As sedentary lifestyles become more prevalent, recommendations to reduce the health risks of prolonged sedentary behavior that are specific to the characteristics and prognostic profiles of cardiac rehabilitation patients are needed. Cardiac rehabilitation programs must consider extending existing behavior change strategies utilized for exercise promotion towards addressing sedentary behaviors in order to be effective at reducing the sedentary time of patients. A participatory approach involving both patients and health professionals can support patients in reducing their sedentary behavior by providing a supportive environment for behavior change, increasing awareness and understanding of risks, discussing the feasibility of potential strategies, and setting achievable and actionable goals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".