School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
School of Nursing and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University Technology, Australia.
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015 Jan;22(1):35-74. doi: 10.1177/2047487313501093. Epub 2013 Aug 13.
The traditional hospital-based model of cardiac rehabilitation faces substantial challenges, such as cost and accessibility. These challenges have led to the development of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in recent years. The aim of this study was to identify and critique evidence for the effectiveness of these alternative models. A total of 22 databases were searched to identify quantitative studies or systematic reviews of quantitative studies regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation. Included studies were appraised using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and the National Health and Medical Research Council's designations for Level of Evidence. The 83 included articles described interventions in the following broad categories of alternative models of care: multifactorial individualized telehealth, internet based, telehealth focused on exercise, telehealth focused on recovery, community- or home-based, and complementary therapies. Multifactorial individualized telehealth and community- or home-based cardiac rehabilitation are effective alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, as they have produced similar reductions in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared with hospital-based programmes. While further research is required to address the paucity of data available regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in rural, remote, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations, our review indicates there is no need to rely on hospital-based strategies alone to deliver effective cardiac rehabilitation. Local healthcare systems should strive to integrate alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, such as brief telehealth interventions tailored to individual's risk factor profiles as well as community- or home-based programmes, in order to ensure there are choices available for patients that best fit their needs, risk factor profile, and preferences.
传统的基于医院的心脏康复模式面临着诸多挑战,如成本和可及性。这些挑战促使近年来出现了心脏康复的替代模式。本研究旨在确定和评价这些替代模式的有效性证据。共搜索了 22 个数据库,以确定关于替代心脏康复模式有效性的定量研究或定量研究系统评价。使用批判性评估技能计划工具和国家卫生和医学研究委员会的证据水平指定对纳入的研究进行评估。83 篇纳入的文章描述了以下广泛类别的替代护理模式的干预措施:多因素个体化远程医疗、基于互联网、以锻炼为重点的远程医疗、以康复为重点的远程医疗、社区或家庭为基础的以及补充疗法。多因素个体化远程医疗和社区或家庭为基础的心脏康复是有效的心脏康复替代模式,因为它们与基于医院的方案相比,产生了类似的心血管疾病危险因素降低。虽然需要进一步研究来解决替代心脏康复模式在农村、偏远地区以及文化和语言多样化人群中的有效性数据不足的问题,但我们的综述表明,没有必要仅仅依赖于基于医院的策略来提供有效的心脏康复。当地医疗保健系统应努力整合替代心脏康复模式,如针对个体危险因素概况的简短远程医疗干预以及社区或家庭为基础的方案,以确保为患者提供最符合其需求、危险因素概况和偏好的选择。