Effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation programs on medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Education to improve medication adherence is one of the core components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of CR programs on medication adherence is conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to summarize the effectiveness of CR programs versus standard care on medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Seven databases and clinical trial registries were searched for published and unpublished articles from database inception to 09 Feb 2022. Only randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. Two independent reviewers conducted the screening, extraction, and appraisal. The JBI methodology for effectiveness reviews and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. A statistical meta-analysis of included studies was pooled using RevMan version 5.4.1. Results: In total 33 studies were included with 16,677 participants. CR programs increased medication adherence by 14 % (RR = 1.14; 95 % CI: 1.07 to 1.22; p = 0.0002) with low degree of evidence certainty. CR also lowered the risk of dying by 17 % (RR = 0.83; 95 % CI: 0.69 to 1.00; p = 0.05); primary care and emergency department visit by mean difference of 0.19 (SMD = -0.19; 95 % CI: -0.30 to -0.08; p = 0.0008); and improved quality of life by 0.93 (SMD = 0.93; 95 % CI: 0.38 to 1.49; p = 0.0010). But no significant difference was observed in lipid profiles, except with total cholesterol (SMD = -0.26; 95 % CI: -0.44 to -0.07; p = 0.006) and blood pressure levels. Conclusions: CR improves medication adherence with a low degree of evidence certainty and non-significant changes in lipid and blood pressure levels. This result requires further investigation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".