Cardiac Rehabilitation Dose Around the World: Variation and Correlates

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended in clinical practice guidelines, but dose prescribed varies highly by country. This study characterized the dose offered in supervised CR programs and alternative models worldwide and their potential correlates. In this cross-sectional study, an online surv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Circulation Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 2020-01, Vol.13 (1), p.e005453-e005453
Hauptverfasser: Chaves, Gabriela, Turk-Adawi, Karam, Supervia, Marta, Santiago de Araújo Pio, Carolina, Abu-Jeish, Abdel-hadi, Mamataz, Taslima, Tarima, Sergey, Lopez Jimenez, Francisco, Grace, Sherry L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended in clinical practice guidelines, but dose prescribed varies highly by country. This study characterized the dose offered in supervised CR programs and alternative models worldwide and their potential correlates. In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Countries were classified based on region and income categories. Dose was operationalized as program duration×sessions per week. Generalized linear mixed models were performed to assess correlates. Of 203 countries in the world, 111 (54.7%) offered CR; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response rate; n=1082 surveys, 32.1% program response rate). Globally, supervised CR programs were a median of 24 sessions (n=619, 57.3% programs ≥12 sessions); home-based and community-based programs offered 6 and 20 sessions, respectively. There was significant variation in supervised CR dose by region ( ≤0.001), with the Americas (median, 36 sessions) offering a significantly greater dose than several other regions; there was also a trend for variation by country income classification. There was no difference in home-based dose by region ( =0.43) but there was for community-based programs (
ISSN:1941-7713
1941-7705
DOI:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005453