Overlooked and Underserved: A Scoping Review of Social and Mental Health Outcomes Following Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation Programming in Rural Dwellers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-communicable chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, are highly prevalent in rural areas. This population is also more susceptible to loneliness and social isolation. Rehabilitation programs are an essential component for the management of cardiopulmonary diseases and have been shown to improve several outcomes (i.e. cardiovascular health, symptom burden, and quality of life). These programs may also play a role in social health. The aim of this review is to explore the state of knowledge surrounding cardiopulmonary rehabilitation programs, loneliness, and social isolation among those living rurally. This review was developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute Guidance for Scoping reviews and it is reported following the PRISMA extension for scoping review framework (PRISMA-ScR). Eligibility criteria: studies including patients with cardiopulmonary disease, participants of a rehabilitation program (no specific criteria) and evaluating any of the following outcomes: social health, mental health, quality of life; published in English. Sources of evidence included CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest Central, grey literature and by hand. A peer-review process was followed for study selection and after data extraction using a piloted template. Eleven studies were included, and the results synthesis is presented descriptively. Few studies explored the effects of rehabilitation or peer-support programs in rural settings and even fewer studies investigated their impact on social health. Mental health and quality of life are more frequently investigated. The underrepresentation of rural dwellers within cardiopulmonary rehabilitation programming and research echo the calls to action to prioritize increased research, programming, and policy for those in rural areas.
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 | 0.018 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".