ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010
Cardiac rehabilitation uptake following myocardial infarction: cross-sectional study in primary care.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac rehabilitation in acute myocardial infarction patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: A community-based study.Medicine · 2018Article
- Psychological Aspects of Cardiac Care and Rehabilitation: Time to Wake Up to Sleep?Current cardiology reports · 2015Review
- Global availability of cardiac rehabilitation.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2014Review
- Stress-induced cardiomyopathy and psychological wellbeing 1 year after an acute event.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2014Article
- The business of doctoring.The Australasian medical journal · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolicies suggest that primary care should be more involved in delivering cardiac rehabilitation. However, there is a lack of information about what is known in primary care regarding patients' invitation or attendance.
aimTo determine, within primary care, how many patients are invited to and attend rehabilitation after myocardial infarction (MI), examine sociodemographic factors related to invitation, and compare quality of life between those who do and do not attend. DESIGN OF STUDY: Review of primary care paper and computer records; cross-sectional questionnaire.
settingNorthern Ireland general practices (38); stratified sample, based on practice size and health board area.
methodPatients, identified from primary care records, 12-16 weeks after a confirmed diagnosis of MI, were posted questionnaires, including a validated MacNew post-MI quality-of-life questionnaire. Practices returned anonymised data for non-responders.
resultsInformation about rehabilitation was available for 332 of the 432 patients identified (76.9%): 162 (37.5%) returned questionnaires. Of the total sample, 54.4% (235/432) were invited and 37.0% (160/432) attended; of those invited, 68.1% (160/235) attended. Invited patients were younger than those not invited (mean age 63 years [standard deviation SD 16] versus 68.5 years [SD 16]); mean difference 5.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7 to 9.3). Among questionnaire responders, those who attended were younger and reported better emotional, physical, and social functioning than non-attenders (P = 0.01; mean differences 0.44 (95% CI = 0.11 to 0.77), 0.48 (95% CI = 0.10 to 0.85) and 0.54 (95% CI = 0.15 to 0.94) respectively).
conclusionInnovative strategies are needed to improve cardiac rehabilitation uptake, integration of hospital and primary care services, and healthcare professionals' awareness of patients' potential for health gain after MI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.