MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412490573 · doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaf067

Effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in cardiac rehabilitation on processes and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4412490573 on OpenAlexaff
Sanuri Wijesekera Kankanamge, Robyn Gallagher, Sherry L. Grace, Ling Zhang, Michelle Cunich, Dion Candelaria

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteYork UniversityUniversity Health Network
FundersMedical Research Future FundNational Heart Foundation of Australia
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionMeta-analysisCINAHLRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEOdds ratioAttendancePhysical therapyObservational studyReferralInternal medicineFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Significant variability in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme content and delivery persists. Quality improvement interventions enhance adherence to standards and reduce variability, yet synthesized evidence of their characteristics and effectiveness in CR is lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of quality improvement interventions on CR processes and patient outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Scopus, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for studies published from January 2000 to November 2024. Study selection in Covidence, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan v5.3, random-effects model. Outcomes not suitable for meta-analysis were reported narratively. Fifteen studies (76 856 participants) were eligible, including 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 retrospective observational study, and 13 pre-post studies. Meta-analysis of 11 studies (17 010 participants) showed that quality improvement interventions significantly improved CR referral [odds ratio (OR) 5.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.11, 8.87]. From subgroup analyses, patient education had the largest effect (OR 8.37; 95% CI 4.32, 16.21), followed by technology (OR 5.56; 95% CI 2.67, 11.58) and process changes (OR 5.31; 95% CI 2.53, 11.12). Narrative synthesis indicated that quality improvement interventions led to significant improvements in time from discharge to scheduled appointment (1/1 studies), attendance (3/4), prescription of guideline-directed medical therapy (1/1), and completion (1/1). Few studies reported patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality improvement interventions improve referral to CR by up to eight times. While caution is warranted, quality improvement interventions may also lower wait times and increase programme utilization. Future studies are needed. REGISTRATION PROSPERO: CRD42024557586.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.057
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical OutcomesSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207