The research unit PROgrez, Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Denmark; The Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Danmark; Department of Health Sciences, University of York, England, United Kingdom.
The research unit PROgrez, Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Denmark; The Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Danmark; Department of Health Sciences, University of York, England, United Kingdom.
Int J Cardiol. 2022 Aug 15;361:7-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.05.007. Epub 2022 May 6.
To achieve effectiveness and reduce inequality in everyday cardiac rehabilitation, this study aims to compare individual patient characteristics along with completion rates to traditional and evolving modes of delivery in cardiac rehabilitation.
Patients were included from the UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) database. All patients with coronary heart disease (≥18 years) between the 1st of January 2014 to 31st of December 2019 that started core rehabilitation with a recorded mode of cardiac rehabilitation delivery were eligible. Modes of delivery were divided into: centre-based, home-based, and hybrid. Logistic regression models were used to investigate association between modes of delivery and completion adjusting for patient demographics.
In total 182,722 patients had mode of delivery recorded: 72.8% centre-based, 8.3% home-based and 18.9% hybrid. The home-based mode in comparison to hybrid and centre-based had significantly higher rates of females, single, white, and unemployed patients (p < 0.001). There was a higher proportion of cardiovascular risk factors in home-based than the other modes (p < 0.001). There was a reduced likelihood of completing home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to centre-based with an odds ratio of 0.66, (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.91) but no significant difference between hybrid and centre-based modes (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.51).
From large real-world data, home-based modes of delivery appear to have significantly lower levels of completion than centre-based modes. Cardiac rehabilitation programs offering home-based and hybrid delivery modes need to be structured to ensure adequacy of completion.
为了在日常心脏康复中实现有效性并减少不平等,本研究旨在比较个体患者特征以及传统和新兴的心脏康复交付模式的完成率。
从英国国家心脏康复审计(NACR)数据库中纳入患者。所有在 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间开始核心康复且记录了心脏康复交付模式的年龄≥18 岁的冠心病患者均符合条件。交付模式分为:中心基础、家庭基础和混合模式。使用逻辑回归模型,在调整患者人口统计学特征后,调查交付模式与完成情况之间的关联。
共记录了 182722 名患者的交付模式:72.8%为中心基础模式,8.3%为家庭基础模式,18.9%为混合模式。与混合模式和中心基础模式相比,家庭基础模式的女性、单身、白人、失业患者比例显著更高(p<0.001)。家庭基础模式的心血管危险因素比例高于其他模式(p<0.001)。与中心基础模式相比,家庭基础模式完成心脏康复的可能性显著降低,优势比为 0.66(95%CI:0.48 至 0.91),但混合模式与中心基础模式之间无显著差异(优势比,1.18;95%CI:0.92 至 1.51)。
从大型真实世界数据来看,家庭基础模式的完成率明显低于中心基础模式。提供家庭基础和混合交付模式的心脏康复计划需要进行结构化设计,以确保完成率充足。