Distinguishing Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Models and Comparing Their Effectiveness: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Unlike center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR), hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (HCR) combines both center-based and home-based training sessions. However, there are various types of HCR, and it remains unclear which type is most effective. This study aimed to classify HCR models and compare their effectiveness relative to CBCR. REVIEW METHODS: We extracted original studies on HCR effectiveness from 3 databases: Medline, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. Inclusion criteria required that the HCR model incorporate a mix of exercise sessions in both a center setting and at home and at least 1 additional core component of cardiac rehabilitation (i.e., education, multidisciplinary care, psychosocial support, or medical risk management). Data on functional capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), level of physical activity (PA), anxiety, depression, adherence, satisfaction, and long-term effects were extracted. SUMMARY: Twenty-six studies were identified, and HCR were classified into 3 types: (1) sequential programs (initial CBCR followed by home-based cardiac rehabilitation only); (2) progressive programs (gradual shift from center-based to home-based); (3) simultaneous programs (CBCR with concurrent home-based sessions). All 3 HCR models achieved results comparable to those of CBCR in terms of functional capacity, HRQoL, anxiety, and depression. Participants reported high levels of adherence and satisfaction with HCR programs. However, the effectiveness of HCR programs on PA levels and long-term effects remains inconclusive. The three HCR models provide similar outcomes to CBCR and thus appear to be promising alternatives to CBCR.
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 | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".