MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085415993 · doi:10.3310/hta8410

Provision, uptake and cost of cardiac rehabilitation programmes: improving services to under-represented groups

2004· review· en· W2085415993 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Technology Assessment · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationReferralAttendancePopulationPsychological interventionMyocardial infarctionPhysical therapyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyAnginaEmergency medicineFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To estimate UK need for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation, current provision and identification of patient groups not receiving services. To conduct a systematic review of literature on methods to improve uptake and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation. To estimate cost implications of increasing uptake of cardiac rehabilitation. DATA SOURCES: Hospital Episode Statistics (England). Hospital Inpatient Systems (Northern Ireland). Patients Episode Database for Wales. British Association for Cardiac Rehabilitation/British Heart Foundation surveys. Cardiac rehabilitation centres. Patients from general hospitals. Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: The study analysed hospital discharge statistics to ascertain the population need for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation in the UK. Surveys of cardiac rehabilitation programmes were conducted to determine UK provision, uptake and audit activity, and to identify local interventions to improve uptake. Data were also examined from a trial estimating eligibility for cardiac rehabilitation and non-attendance. A systematic review of interventions to improve patient uptake, adherence and professional compliance in cardiac rehabilitation was conducted. Estimated costs of improving uptake were identified from national survey, systematic review and sampled cardiac rehabilitation programmes. RESULTS: In England, Wales and Northern Ireland nearly 146,000 patients discharged from hospital with primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina or following revascularisation were potentially eligible for cardiac rehabilitation. In England in 2000, 45-67% of these patients were referred, with 27-41% attending outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. If all discharge diagnoses of ischaemic heart disease were considered, nearly 299,000 patients would be potentially eligible and in England rates of attendance and referral would be 22-33% and 13-20% respectively. Rates of referral and attendance were similar in Wales, but somewhat lower in Northern Ireland. It was found that referral and attendance of older people and women at cardiac rehabilitation tended to be low. It was also suggested that patients from ethnic minorities and those with angina or heart failure were less likely to be referred to or join programmes. A wide range of local interventions suggested awareness of the problem of uptake. In an NHS-funded randomised controlled trial, possibly representing more optimal protocol-led care, medical and nursing staff identified 73-81% of patients with acute myocardial infarction as eligible for cardiac rehabilitation. Excluded patients tended to be older with more severe presentation of cardiac disease. Experiences of patients suggested that uptake may be improved by addressing issues of motivation and relevance of rehabilitation to future well-being, co-morbidities, site and time of programme, transport and care for dependents. Systematic review of studies supported the use of letters, pamphlets or home visits to motivate patients and the use of trained lay visitors. Self-management techniques showed some value in promoting adherence to lifestyle changes. Studies examining professional compliance found that professional support for practice nurses may have value in the coordination of postdischarge care. Average costs in 2001 of cardiac rehabilitation to the health service per patient completing a cardiac rehabilitation programme were about GBP350 (staff only) and GBP490 (total). If services were modelled on an intermediate multidisciplinary configuration with three to five key staff, approximately 13% more patients could be treated with the same budget. Depending on staffing configuration an approximate 200-790% budget increase would be required to provide cardiac rehabilitation to all potentially eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation in the UK is low and little is known about the capacity of cardiac rehabilitation centres to increase this provision. There is an uncoordinated approach to audit data collection and few interventions aimed at improving the situation have been formally evaluated. Motivational communications and trained lay volunteers may improve uptake of cardiac rehabilitation, as may self-management techniques. Experience of low-cost interventions and good practice exists within rehabilitation centres, although cost information frequently is not reported. Increased provision of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation will require extra resources. Further trials are required to compare the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation with simpler outpatient programmes, also research is needed into economic and patient preference studies of the effects of different methods of using increased funding for cardiac rehabilitation. An evaluation of a range of interventions to promote attendance in all patients and under-represented groups would also be useful. The development of standards is suggested for audit methods and for eligibility criteria, as well as regular and comprehensive data collection to estimate the need for and provision of cardiac rehabilitation. Further areas for intervention could be identified through qualitative studies, and the extension of low-cost interventions and good practice within rehabilitation centres. Regularly updated systematic reviews of relevant literature would also be useful.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it