ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2018
Cardiac Rehabilitation Models around the Globe.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nature, availability, and utilization of women-focused cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Supporting Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Older Adults with Coronary Heart Disease: Development of a Web-Based Nursing Intervention.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2026Trial
- Comparisons of core component delivery in cardiac rehabilitation programs by country income classification and decade based on the 2025 Global Audit Update: A survey study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Low-Intensity Resistance Exercise in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review of Mechanistic Evidence and Clinical Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Psychometric validation of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale Revised (CRBS-R) for hybrid delivery.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Patient-reported preferences in eHealth-based cardiac rehabilitation: A qualitative investigation of behavior change techniques, barriers and facilitators.Internet interventions · 2024Article
- Article
- Cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure: 'Cinderella' or evidence-based pillar of care?European heart journal · 2023Review
- Availability and nature of cardiac rehabilitation by province in Iran: A 2018 update of ICCPR's global audit.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness of a comprehensive patient education intervention in a hybrid model of cardiac rehabilitation: A pilot study.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery around the World.Global heart · 2021Article
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Validation of the Chinese/Mandarin Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS-C/M).Rehabilitation research and practice · 2021Article
- Community-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Conducted in a Public Health Center in South Korea: A Preliminary Study.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2020Article
- Factors Predicting the Utilization of Center-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- COVID-19: A Time for Alternate Models in Cardiac Rehabilitation to Take Centre Stage.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2020Article
- Performance Measures for Short-Term Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients of Working Age: Results of the Prospective Observational Multicenter Registry OutCaRe.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2020Article
- Cardiac Rehabilitation in India: Results from the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation's Global Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation.Global heart · 2020Article
- Nature of Cardiac Rehabilitation Around the Globe.EClinicalMedicine · 2019Article
- Global Need for Physical Rehabilitation: Systematic Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Interventions to Promote Patient Utilization of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery, such as home or community-based programs, have been developed to overcome underutilization. However, their availability and characteristics have never been assessed globally. In this cross-sectional study, a piloted survey was administered online to CR programs globally. CR was available in 111/203 (54.7%) countries globally; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response rate). 1082 surveys (32.1% program response rate) were initiated. Globally, 85 (76.6%) countries with CR offered supervised programs, and 51 (45.9%; or 25.1% of all countries) offered some alternative model. Thirty-eight (34.2%) countries with CR offered home-based programs, with 106 (63.9%) programs offering some form of electronic CR (eCR). Twenty-five (22.5%) countries with CR offered community-based programs. Where available, programs served a mean of 21.4% ± 22.8% of their patients in home-based programs. The median dose for home-based CR was 3 sessions (Q25-Q75 = 1.0⁻4.0) and for community-based programs was 20 (Q25⁻Q75 = 9.6⁻36.0). Seventy-eight (47.0%) respondents did not perceive they had sufficient capacity to meet demand in their home-based program, for reasons including funding and insufficient staff. Where alternative CR models are offered, capacity is insufficient half the time. Home-based CR dose is insufficient to achieve health benefits. Allocation to program model should be evidence-based.
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.