Identifying barriers and enablers to cardiac rehabilitation participation and completion unique to South Asian individuals: a qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: South Asian individuals living outside the Indian subcontinent are under-represented in cardiac rehabilitation (CR), despite facing higher rates of cardiac-related mortality and hospitalizations compared with White ethnic groups. Understanding how cultural differences affect CR participation and completion after referral requires the examination of barriers and enablers specific to South Asian populations. This review aims to summarize evidence on barriers and enablers to CR for South Asian minorities outside the Indian subcontinent. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of six databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science) was conducted in January 2024 (updated November 2024), with no language or date limitations. Studies from countries outside the Indian subcontinent were included. Barriers and enablers were identified, followed by thematic analysis. Thirteen studies (n = 384 South Asian participants) from the UK (n = 10) and Canada (n = 3) were included. Five key themes were generated: (i) communication and knowledge, (ii) motivation to attend CR or follow medical advice, (iii) religion, (iv) programme delivery, and (v) practical considerations. Key factors influencing CR participation included language barriers, family support, fatalistic beliefs, and motivation. Each theme encapsulates barriers and enablers and shapes participation at both service and patient level. While some barriers were common across different ethnic groups, they had stronger impact on South Asians due to distinct social determinants of health. CONCLUSION: Barriers and enablers are closely linked to cultural and societal norms. Recognizing these factors enables CR services to better address the needs of underserved populations, ensuring equitable healthcare provision and support. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023482611.
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 | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".