ArticleHeart Asia2018
Patient preferences for types of community-based cardiac rehabilitation programme.
Article in Heart Asia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Exercise Preferences and Barriers Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction or Myocardial Infarction.Korean circulation journal · 2024Article
- Patient Preferences for Cardiac Rehabilitation - A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
- Discrete choice experiment to investigate preferences for psychological intervention in cardiac rehabilitation.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves mortality, morbidity and quality of life of cardiovascular patients. However, its uptake is poor especially in the hospitals due to long travel distances and office hours constraints. Community-based CR is a possible solution.
objectivesTo understand the type of community-based CR preferred and identify patient characteristics associated with certain programme combinations.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to a randomised list of patients at risk for or with cardiovascular diseases at two community-based CR centres. Participants were presented with nine hypothetical choice sets and asked to choose only one of the two alternative programme combinations in each choice set. Attributes include support group presence, cash incentives, upfront deposit and out-of-pocket cost. The counts for each combination were tallied and corrected for repeats. Chi-square test and logistic regression were performed to understand the characteristics associated with the preferred CR combination.
resultsAfter correcting for repeats, patients most (85.2%) prefer CR programmes with new group activities, support group, cash rewards, deposit and out-of-pocket cost, and few exercise equipment with physiotherapist presence without the need for monitoring equipment. Patients with more than three bedrooms in their house are less likely (OR 0.367; CI 0.17 to 0.80; P=0.011) to choose the choice with no physiotherapist and few equipment available.
conclusionThis is the first study to explore patients' preferences for different types of community CR. Higher income patients prefer physiotherapist presence and are willing to settle for less equipment. Our study serves as a guide for designing future community-based CR programmes.
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.