Dataset Information

Interventions to Promote Patient Utilization of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Too few patients utilize cardiac rehabilitation (CR), despite its benefits. The Cochrane review assessing the effectiveness of interventions to increase CR utilization (enrolment, adherence, and completion) was updated. A search was performed through July 2018 of the Cochrane and MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) databases, among other sources. Randomized controlled trials in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, revascularization, or heart failure were included. Interventions had to aim to increase utilization of comprehensive phase II CR. Two authors independently performed all stages of citation processing. Following the random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression was undertaken to explore the impact of pre-specified factors. Twenty-six trials with 5299 participants were included (35.8% women). Low-quality evidence showed an effect of interventions in increasing enrolment (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.13?1.42). Meta-regression analyses suggested that the intervention deliverer (nurse or allied healthcare provider, p = 0.02) and delivery format (face-to-face, p = 0.01) were influential in increasing enrolment. There was low-quality evidence that interventions to increase adherence were effective (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20?0.55), particularly where remotely-offered (SMD = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.36?0.76). There was moderate-quality evidence that interventions to increase program completion were effective (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02?1.25). There are effective interventions to increase CR utilization, but more research is needed to establish specific, implementable materials and protocols, particularly for completion.

SUBMITTER: Pio CSA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6406265 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interventions to Promote Patient Utilization of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pio Carolina Santiago de Araújo CSA Chaves Gabriela G Davies Philippa P Taylor Rod R Grace Sherry S

Journal of clinical medicine 20190205 2

Too few patients utilize cardiac rehabilitation (CR), despite its benefits. The Cochrane review assessing the effectiveness of interventions to increase CR utilization (enrolment, adherence, and completion) was updated. A search was performed through July 2018 of the Cochrane and MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) databases, among other sources. Randomized controlled trials in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, revascularization, or heart failure were inclu ...[more]

PMID: 30764517

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008.Review methodsReference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information.Results12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference -0.11, -0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, -3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (-0.13 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.06, -0.11 to -0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation.ConclusionsHome and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients' adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the "Heart Manual." The choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite strong evidence supporting the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), over 80% of eligible patients do not participate in CR. Digital health technologies (ie, the delivery of care using the internet, wearable devices, and mobile apps) have the potential to address the challenges associated with traditional facility-based CR programs, but little is known about the comprehensiveness of these interventions to serve as digital approaches to CR. Overall, there is a lack of a systematic evaluation of the current literature on digital interventions for CR.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic literature review is to provide an in-depth analysis of the potential of digital health technologies to address the challenges associated with traditional CR. Through this review, we aim to summarize the current literature on digital interventions for CR, identify the key components of CR that have been successfully addressed through digital interventions, and describe the gaps in research that need to be addressed for sustainable and scalable digital CR interventions.MethodsOur strategy for identifying the primary literature pertaining to CR with digital solutions (defined as technology employed to deliver remote care beyond the use of the telephone) included a consultation with an expert in the field of digital CR and searches of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for original studies published from January 1990 to October 2018.ResultsOur search returned 31 eligible studies, of which 22 were randomized controlled trials. The reviewed CR interventions primarily targeted physical activity counseling (31/31, 100%), baseline assessment (30/31, 97%), and exercise training (27/31, 87%). The most commonly used modalities were smartphones or mobile devices (20/31, 65%), web-based portals (18/31, 58%), and email-SMS (11/31, 35%). Approximately one-third of the studies addressed the CR core components of nutrition counseling, psychological management, and weight management. In contrast, less than a third of the studies addressed other CR core components, including the management of lipids, diabetes, smoking cessation, and blood pressure.ConclusionsDigital technologies have the potential to increase access and participation in CR by mitigating the challenges associated with traditional, facility-based CR. However, previously evaluated interventions primarily focused on physical activity counseling and exercise training. Thus, further research is required with more comprehensive CR interventions and long-term follow-up to understand the clinical impact of digital interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesElectronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.Study selection criteriaTrials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.ResultsForty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation is offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and reduce the likelihood of further cardiac illness. However, patient participation remains suboptimal and the provision of high quality care to an expanding population of patients with chronic heart conditions is becoming increasingly difficult. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect of telephone support interventions compared with standard post-discharge care on coronary artery disease patient outcomes.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched and randomized controlled trials that directly compared telephone interventions with standard post-discharge care in adults following a myocardial infarction or a revascularization procedure were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. Where appropriate, outcome data were combined and analyzed using a random effects model. For each dichotomous outcome, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. For continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (WMD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI were calculated.Results26 studies met the inclusion criteria. No difference was observed in mortality between the telephone group and the group receiving standard care OR 1.12 (0.71, 1.77). The intervention was significantly associated with fewer hospitalizations than the comparison group OR 0.62 (0.40, 0.97). Significantly more participants in the telephone group stopped smoking OR 1.32 (1.07, 1.62); had lower systolic blood pressure WMD -0.22 (-0.40, -0.04); lower depression scores SMD -0.10 (-0.21, -0.00); and lower anxiety scores SMD -0.14 (-0.24, -0.04). However, no significant difference was observed for low-density lipoprotein levels WMD -0.10 (-0.23, 0.03).ConclusionsCompared to standard post-discharge care, regular telephone support interventions may help reduce feelings of anxiety and depression as well as, improve systolic blood pressure control and the likelihood of smoking cessation.

Project description:AimThe aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on the secondary physical, neurological and psychological consequences of cardiac arrest (CA) for adult survivors.MethodsA literature search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Excerpta Medica database, Psychological Information Database, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials) was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies up to 18 April 2021. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and main secondary outcome was neurological function with additional secondary outcomes being survival, rehospitalisation, safety (serious and non-serious adverse events), psychological well-being, fatigue, exercise capacity and physical capacity. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.ResultsThree RCTs and 11 observational studies were included (total 721 participants). Study duration ranged from 8 weeks to 2 years. Pooled data from two RCTs showed low-quality evidence for no effect on physical HRQoL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.47)) and no effect on mental HRQoL (SMD 0.27 (95% CI: -0.01 to 0.55)).Regarding secondary outcomes, very low-quality evidence was found for improvement in neurological function associated with inpatient rehabilitation for CA survivors with acquired brain injury (SMD 0.71, (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96)) from five observational studies. Two small observational studies found exercise-based rehabilitation interventions to be safe for CA survivors, reporting no serious or non-serious events.ConclusionsGiven the overall low quality of evidence, this review cannot determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for CA survivors on HRQoL, neurological function or other included outcomes, and recommend further high-quality studies be conducted. In the interim, existing clinical guidelines on rehabilitation provision after CA should be followed to meet the high burden of secondary consequences suffered by CA survivors.Prospero registration numberCRD42018110129.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation is a class IA recommendation for patients with cardiovascular diseases. Physical activity is the core component and core competency of a cardiac rehabilitation program. However, many patients with cardiovascular diseases are failing to meet cardiac rehabilitation guidelines that recommend moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity.ObjectiveThe major objective of this study was to review the evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in increasing moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity among patients in cardiac rehabilitation. The secondary objective was to examine the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in improving cardiovascular-related outcomes, that is, cardiorespiratory fitness, waist circumference, and systolic blood pressure.MethodsA comprehensive search strategy was developed, and a systematic search of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) was conducted for papers published from the start of the creation of the database until November 27, 2022. Experimental studies reporting on eHealth interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity among patients in cardiac rehabilitation were included. Multiple unblinded reviewers determined the study eligibility and extracted data. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for randomized controlled trials and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care group methods for nonrandomized controlled trials. A random-effect model was used to provide the summary measures of effect (ie, standardized mean difference and 95% CI). All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 17.ResultsWe screened 3636 studies, but only 29 studies were included in the final review, of which 18 were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that eHealth interventions improved moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (standardized mean difference=0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.28; P=.001) and vigorous-intensity physical activity (standardized mean difference=0.2, 95% CI 0.00-0.39; P=.048) but did not improve moderate-intensity physical activity (standardized mean difference=0.19, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.51; P=.23). No changes were observed in the cardiovascular-related outcomes. Post hoc subgroup analyses identified that wearable-based, web-based, and communication-based eHealth intervention delivery methods were effective.ConclusionseHealth interventions are effective at increasing minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity among patients in cardiac rehabilitation. There was no difference in the effectiveness of the major eHealth intervention delivery methods, thereby providing evidence that in the future, health care professionals and researchers can personalize convenient and affordable interventions tailored to patient characteristics and needs to eliminate the inconvenience of visiting center-based cardiac rehabilitation programs during the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide better support for home-based maintenance of cardiac rehabilitation.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021278029; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278029.

Dataset Information

Interventions to Promote Patient Utilization of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Interventions to Promote Patient Utilization of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets