Suppr超能文献

家庭式与现场式心脏康复使用障碍的比较。

A comparison of barriers to use of home- versus site-based cardiac rehabilitation.

机构信息

York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2013 Sep-Oct;33(5):297-302. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0b013e31829b6e81.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Despite the established benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), it remains significantly underutilized. It is unknown whether patient barriers to enrollment and adherence are addressed by offering choice of program type. The purpose of this study was to examine barriers to participation in CR by program type (site- vs home-based program) and the relation of these barriers to degree of program participation and exercise behavior.

METHODS

One thousand eight hundred nine cardiac patients from 11 hospitals across Ontario completed a sociodemographic survey inhospital, and clinical data were extracted from medical records. They were mailed a followup survey 1 year later, which included the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale and the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly. Participants were also asked whether they attended CR, the type of program model attended, and the percentage of prescribed sessions completed.

RESULTS

Overall, 939 patients (51.9%) participated in CR, with 96 (10.3%) participating in a home-based program. Home-based participants reported significantly greater CR barriers, including distance, than site-based participants (P < .001). Mean barrier scores were significantly and negatively related to session completion and physical activity among site-based (Ps < .05), but not home-based (NS), CR participants.

CONCLUSION

The barriers to CR are significantly different among patients attending site- versus home-based programs, suggesting appropriate use of alternative models of care. Patient preferences should be considered when allocating patients to program models. Once in CR, programs should work toward identifying and tackling barriers among site-based participants.

摘要

目的

尽管心脏康复(CR)的益处已得到证实,但它的利用率仍然很低。目前尚不清楚提供方案类型选择是否能解决患者参与的障碍。本研究的目的是通过方案类型(现场和家庭方案)检查 CR 参与的障碍,并研究这些障碍与参与程度和运动行为的关系。

方法

安大略省 11 家医院的 1809 名心脏病患者在住院期间完成了一项社会人口统计学调查,临床数据从病历中提取。他们在 1 年后收到了一份后续调查,其中包括心脏康复障碍量表和老年人体育活动量表。参与者还被问及是否参加了 CR、参加的方案类型以及完成的规定课程百分比。

结果

总体而言,939 名患者(51.9%)参加了 CR,其中 96 名(10.3%)参加了家庭方案。与现场方案参与者相比,家庭方案参与者报告了更大的 CR 障碍,包括距离(P <.001)。现场方案的 CR 参与者的平均障碍得分与课程完成率和身体活动呈显著负相关(P <.05),而家庭方案的参与者则没有(NS)。

结论

参加现场和家庭方案的患者的 CR 障碍存在显著差异,这表明应适当使用替代的护理模式。在分配患者到方案模型时,应考虑患者的偏好。一旦进入 CR,就应努力识别和解决现场方案参与者的障碍。

相似文献

6
Perceptions of barriers to cardiac rehabilitation use in Brazil.巴西对心脏康复治疗使用障碍的认知。
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2013;9:485-91. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S48213. Epub 2013 Aug 30.

引用本文的文献

7
Disparities in Geographic Access to Cardiac Rehabilitation in Los Angeles County.洛杉矶县心脏康复地理可及性的差异。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Sep 20;11(18):e026472. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.026472. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
10
Tracking Cardiac Rehabilitation Utilization in Medicare Beneficiaries: 2017 UPDATE.追踪 Medicare 受益人心血管康复利用情况:2017 年更新。
J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2022 Jul 1;42(4):235-245. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000675. Epub 2022 Feb 8.

本文引用的文献

3
Psychometric validation of the cardiac rehabilitation barriers scale.心脏康复障碍量表的心理测量学验证。
Clin Rehabil. 2012 Feb;26(2):152-64. doi: 10.1177/0269215511410579. Epub 2011 Sep 21.
4
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease.基于运动的冠心病心脏康复
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6(7):CD001800. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001800.pub2.
5
The global burden of cardiovascular disease.心血管疾病的全球负担。
J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4 Suppl):S5-14. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0b013e318213efcf.
8
Cardiac rehabilitation: into the future.心脏康复:迈向未来。
Heart. 2009 Dec;95(23):1897-900. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2009.173732. Epub 2009 Oct 8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验