CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 113Cardiac Health and Mental HealthMedical Practices and RehabilitationStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Women's views of cardiac rehabilitation programs

Moore, Shirley M.·1996·Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1097/00008483-199603000-00007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous approaches to understanding participation in cardiac rehabilitation programs based on middle-aged men may not be useful to explain the participation of women. The focus group research method produces unique data about attitudes and experiences that can serve as an adjunct to other forms of data collection in an effort to develop models explaining cardiac rehabilitation participation. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the perceptions and experiences of women participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program using focus groups. METHODS: Ten women (mean age 72 years) who had recently participated in a cardiac rehabilitation program were interviewed in focus groups of 6 and 4 members each using a semi-structured interview guide. Verbatim transcriptions of the focus group interviews were analyzed by two individuals using content analysis methods. RESULTS: Results indicated that prior to participation women had no idea what to expect in a cardiac rehabilitation program. Features women liked most about the program included: (1) feeling "safe" during exercise because they were monitored; (2) peer group support during rehabilitation; and (3) pleasant, encouraging staff. Women desired more: (1) social interaction during the cardiac rehabilitation exercise sessions; (2) emotional support from staff members about all dimensions of cardiac recovery; and (3) exercise options other than cycle or treadmill. CONCLUSIONS: Several cardiac rehabilitation program design and operational features are perceived by women as not meeting their needs. Although limited by its small sample size, findings from this study provide valuable insights into women's perceptions of cardiac rehabilitation programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00008483-199603000-00007

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moore, S. M.
Affiliations
Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Moore, Shirley M.
ORCID
Moore, Shirley M.
Venue
Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1996-03
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
123-129
ISSN
0883-9212 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00008483-199603000-00007
OpenAlex
W1965048512
Cited by
113
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
cardiac rehabilitation, women, program participation, patient perspectives, exercise safety, peer support, social interaction, middle-aged women, older women
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Health, Exercise Therapy, Female, Heart Diseases, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Centers, Social Support, Women, Patient Satisfaction, Focus Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review