ArticleAnnals of medicine2024
Understanding adaptive tasks in cardiac rehabilitation among patients with acute myocardial infarction: a qualitative study.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rehabilitation needs and adherence among TAVR patients and their caregivers during digital home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a qualitative longitudinal study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Association between adaptive capacity and readiness for hospital discharge among patients with acute myocardial infarction: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- The Role of Nursing in the Delivery of Cardio-Oncology.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of 'Internet Plus' remote management in improving cardiac rehabilitation outcomes in acute myocardial infarction patients.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) programs have shown effectiveness in improving cardiac outcomes, there is limited understanding of how patients perceive and adapt to these interventions. Furthermore, alternative modes of delivering CR that have received positive evaluations from participants remain underexplored, yet they have the potential to enhance CR uptake.
objectivesTo explore the patient experience in CR programmes following Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and describe their adaptive processing. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted at a nationally certified centre in China between July 2021 and September 2022, encompassing three stages: in-hospital, centre-based, and home-based CR programs. Purposive sampling was used to select eligible AMI patients for in-depth semi-structured interviews. The interview outline and analytical framework were aligned with the key concepts derived from the middle-range theory of adaptation to chronic illness and the normalization process theory. The findings were reported following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.
resultsForty AMI patients were recruited. Four main themes describing the process of AMI patients normalizing CR intervention were identified, including (1) experiencing CR service driving by role's responsibilities, (2) engaging in collaborative relationship based on interpersonal trust, (3) exploring a personalized rehabilitation plan by complex integration, and (4) expecting a promised outcome to shape decision-making.
conclusionIntegrated care interventions for AMI patients could benefit from a collaborative co-designed approach to ensure that CR interventions are normalized and fit into patients' daily lives. Organizational-level CR services should align with the rehabilitation needs and expectations of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.