ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Disparities in the Use of Cardiac Rehabilitation after a Myocardial Infarction in the United States.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. 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.
- Cardiac Rehabilitation in the Modern Era: Evidence, Equity, and Evolving Delivery Models Across the Cardiovascular Spectrum.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Association of Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation With Lower Mortality in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Results From the Veterans Health Administration Healthy Heart Program.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Observational
- Disparities in Geographic Access to Cardiac Rehabilitation in Los Angeles County.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Disparities in the Use of Cardiac Rehabilitation in African Americans.Current cardiovascular risk reports · 2022Review
- Referral and participation in cardiac rehabilitation of patients following acute coronary syndrome; lessons learned.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study's aim was to identify disparities in the use of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) services. Data were obtained from the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) conducted through landline and cellular phones by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Demographic, behavioral, and clinical variables were defined to explore disparities between CR users and non-users. Bivariate chi-square analyses and weighted multivariable logistic regression were used to identify disparities. Analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. There were 8506 individuals who had a myocardial infarction (MI) that completed the survey, and 2891 of these individuals reported using CR. The mean weighted CR utilization rate was 31.9% and varied from 17.9% (Hawaii) to 58.9% (Minnesota). Females (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.73; 0.6-0.88), African Americans (aOR = 0.63; 0.46-0.87), and those in-between the ages of 18 and 49 years-old were less likely to use CR (aOR = 0.54; 0.34-0.86) compared to their counterparts. Individuals who were high school graduates (aOR = 1.57; 1.19-2.07), attended college (aOR = 1.34; 1.01-1.79), or graduated college (aOR = 1.91; 1.41-2.61) were more likely to use CR compared to their counterparts. Non-high school graduates, females, African Americans, and those aged between 18 to 49 should be targeted to increase CR participation.
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.