ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Availability and characteristics of cardiac rehabilitation programs in one Brazilian state: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to cardiac rehabilitation and their association with hospital readmission in patients with heart failure.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Observational
- Regional disparities in cardiac rehabilitation volume throughout Japan based on open data from a National Database of Health Insurance Claims.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2022Article
- Barriers to cardiac rehabilitation delivery in a low-resource setting from the perspective of healthcare administrators, rehabilitation providers, and cardiac patients.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Role of physical therapists in the weaning and extubation procedures of pediatric and neonatal intensive care units: a survey.Brazilian journal of physical therapyArticle
- Cardiac rehabilitation availability and delivery in Brazil: a comparison to other upper middle-income countries.Brazilian journal of physical therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a recommended model of care for cardiovascular diseases; however, is not widely available and is underutilized, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
objectivesTo identify the CR programs available in one Brazilian state (Minas Gerais; MG) and describe their characteristics by funding type.
methodsIn this multi-center descriptive study, CR programs were identified in four MG regions and 41 CR coordinators were sent a survey to report the characteristics of their programs, including CR components described in guidelines and barriers to patients' participation. Descriptive and comparative analysis between public and private programs were carried out.
resultsForty-one CR programs were identified, only 21.9% public. Nineteen completed the survey. The majority of CR programs offered initial assessment and physical training. Components of comprehensive CR programs that were rarely offered included treatment of tobacco dependence, psychological support and lipid control. Physical therapists were present in all CR programs. The six-minute walk test was used in most programs to assess functional capacity. Programs were located intra-hospital only in public hospitals. Phase 2 (initial outpatient) and phase 4 (maintenance) were offered significantly more in private programs when compared to public ones. The main barrier for CR participation was the lack of referral.
conclusionsThe availability of CR programs in MG state is low, especially public programs. Most programs do not offer all core components of CR.
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.