A Pilot Trial of a Coaching Intervention Designed to Increase Women's Attendance at Cardiac Rehabilitation Intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be the leading cause of death of Canadian women and while treatment for CVD has improved dramatically, women typically fare worse than men with regards to morbidity following cardiac event. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is well established as a key intervention in the treatment of coronary artery disease and has been shown to be effective in both men and women. CR remains largely underutilized, especially in women who comprise only 12 – 24% of contemporary CR programs, even though the prevalence of CVD in men and women is similar. \n\nThe objectives of this pilot trial were to test the feasibility of all procedures, specifically to determine: 1) an estimate of patient recruitment rates, 2) acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and 3) barriers to CR attendance and resources required. Additionally, exploratory research questions were used to determine the effects of telephone coaching on women’s attendance at CR intake appointment, self-efficacy for cardiac exercise and self-efficacy to attend CR.\n\nA RCT design enrolled women with CVD referred for CR at a single site in Ontario. Patients were randomized, stratified for age, to either a usual care group or an intervention group. Participants allocated to usual care received a referral to CR. In addition to usual care, women assigned to the intervention group received individualized telephone coaching, designed to support self-management prior to CR intake.\n\nEighty-three patients were approached and 70 consented to participate (usual care n = 36, intervention n = 34). Participants in the intervention group were significantly more likely to attend CR intake (p = 0.048). Participants were highly satisfied with their coaching experience; they found the information provided to be helpful with goal setting, action planning and assisted them in their interactions with their health care providers. Barriers to attendance identified included transportation, health concerns, timing and lack of physician endorsement. Most common resources identified included problem solving support, assistance with communication with physicians and information concerning CR. \n\nThe evidence obtained from this pilot trial suggests that a telephone coaching intervention designed to enhance self-management is feasible and may improve attendance at CR intake for women following hospital discharge with a cardiac event.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".