Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28289547›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2017

Development and refinement of a complex intervention within cardiac rehabilitation services: experiences from the CADENCE feasibility study.

Rachel Winder, Suzanne H Richards, John L Campbell, David A Richards, Chris Dickens, Manish Gandhi, Christine Wright, Katrina Turner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel WinderUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9926-1280
Suzanne H RichardsUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
John L CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
David A RichardsUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
Chris DickensUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
Manish GandhiRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW UK.
Christine WrightUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
Katrina TurnerSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK.
University of Exeter · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/189/06Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients who experience a cardiac event are at higher risk of developing depression than the general population. Despite this, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes do not provide a systematic approach to psychological care for depression. The CADENCE study aimed to develop and pilot an enhanced psychological care (EPC) intervention consisting of behavioural activation (BA) and mental health care coordination. Following original research commissioning guidance, the intervention was planned to be embedded in routine care and delivered by CR nurses to patients with depression attending CR. This paper describes how qualitative methods were used to develop, embed and refine the intervention.

methodsThis feasibility study involved three CR teams. Observations were made of CR nurses delivering usual care, of EPC training given to nurses, and of supervision sessions provided to the CR nurses. Four nurses were interviewed shortly after their EPC training, and three were interviewed again 6-7 months later having delivered EPC to patients. All nine patients recruited to receive EPC were interviewed. Analyses of the observation notes and interview transcripts focused on how the intervention could be improved in terms of its acceptability and implementation.

resultsVariations were found between the CR teams regarding patient waiting list times, how CR was delivered, what facilities were available and how many CR sessions were offered to patients. EPC was acceptable to both nurses and patients. However, nurses struggled to provide this additional care within their existing workload and resources, and patients' disrupted progression through the CR programme affected EPC delivery. Limited time and availability of private space meant nurses also delivered EPC by telephone, which was viewed as a pragmatic solution but less preferable than face-to-face. Nurses indicated that patients struggled with some of the written materials. Findings were used to revise the intervention to become a protocol of care coordination which included guided self-help BA.

conclusionsInsights gained through conducting interviews and observations enabled us to identify barriers to the implementation of EPC, and to modify the intervention to facilitate its delivery within existing services whilst remaining acceptable to both nurses and patients. The multiple method, iterative approach used was key to the success of this qualitative study.

trial registrationISRCTN34701576 Registered 29/05/2014.

Indexed as

Behavioural activationCare coordinationComplex interventionDepressionEnhanced psychological careIntervention developmentQualitative researchRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID28289547
PMCPMC5304389
OpenAlexW2587284759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.