Trial reportBMJ open2016
Cardiac rehabilitation referral and enrolment across an academic health sciences centre with eReferral and peer navigation: a randomised controlled pilot trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02204449 (Mentorship to Promote Cardiac Rehabilitation Enrollment), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Mentorship to Promote Cardiac Rehabilitation Enrollment: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Social network interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Physical activity interventions for people with congenital heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions to promote patient utilisation of cardiac rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation in comparison to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes: A literature review.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Review
- What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Review
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Patient and parent perspectives on transition from paediatric to adult healthcare in rheumatic diseases: an interview study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Interventions to Promote Patient Utilization of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Cardiac Rehabilitation for Women: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Solutions.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2017Review
- Article
- Perspectives of Post-Acute Transition of Care for Cardiac Surgery Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2017Review
- Comprehensive Cardiovascular Risk Reduction and Cardiac Rehabilitation in Diabetes and the Metabolic Syndrome.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2016Review
- Movement-based mind-body interventions for cardiac rehabilitation: An updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Tzu chi medical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe (1) cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral across cardiac units in a tertiary centre with eReferral; (2) characteristics associated with CR referral and enrolment and (3) the effects of peer navigation (PN) on referral and enrolment. This pilot was a 2 parallel-arm, randomised, single-blind trial with allocation concealment.
setting3 cardiac units (ie, interventional, general cardiology, and cardiac surgery) in 1 of 2 hospitals of a tertiary centre.
participantsCR-eligible adult cardiac inpatients were randomised to PN or usual care. 94 (54.7%) patients consented, of which 46 (48.9%) were randomised to PN. Outcomes were ascertained in 76 (80.9%) participants.
interventionThe PN (1) visited participant at the bedside, (2) mailed a card to participant's home reminding about CR and (3) called participant 2 weeks postdischarge to discuss CR barriers. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of enrolment was defined as participant attendance at a scheduled CR intake appointment (yes/no). The secondary outcome was referral. Blinded outcome assessment was conducted 12 weeks postdischarge, via CR chart extraction.
resultsThose who received care on the cardiac surgery unit (77.9%) were more likely to be referred than those treated on the general cardiology (61.1%) or interventional unit (33.3%; p=0.04). Patients who had cardiac surgery, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were significantly more likely, and those with congenital heart disease, cancer and a previous cardiac diagnosis were less likely to be referred. Participants referred to a site closer to home (76.2% of those referred) were more likely to enrol than those not (23.7%, p<0.05). PN had no effect on referral (77.6%, p=0.45) or enrolment (46.0%, p=0.24).
conclusionsThere is wide variability in CR referral, even within academic centres, and despite eReferral. Referral was quite high, and thus, PN did not improve CR utilisation. Results support triaging patients to the CR programme closest to their home. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02204449; Results.
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.