ArticleBMJ open2019
Does socially differentiated cardiac rehabilitation affect the use of healthcare services after myocardial infarction? A 10-year follow-up study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the long-term effect of a socially differentiated cardiac rehabilitation (CR) intervention tailored to reduce social inequalities in health regarding use of healthcare services in general practice and hospital among socially vulnerable patients admitted with first-episode myocardial infarction (MI).
designA prospective cohort study with 10 years' follow-up.
settingDepartment of cardiology at a university hospital in Denmark between 2000 and 2004.
participantsPatients <70 years admitted with first-episode MI categorised as socially vulnerable (n=208) or non-socially vulnerable (n=171) based on educational level and social network.
interventionA socially differentiated CR intervention. The intervention consisted of standard CR and expanded CR with focus on cross-sectional collaboration.
main outcome measuresParticipation in annual chronic care consultations in general practice, contacts to general practice, all-cause hospitalisations and cardiovascular readmissions.
resultsAt 2-year and 5-year follow-up, socially vulnerable patients receiving expanded CR participated significantly more in annual chronic care consultations (p=0.02 and p<0.01) but at 10-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in annual chronic care consultations (p=0.13). At 10-year follow-up, socially vulnerable patients receiving standard CR had significantly more contacts to general practice (p=0.03). At 10-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the proportion of socially vulnerable patients receiving expanded CR in the mean number of all-cause hospitalisations and cardiovascular readmissions (p>0.05).
conclusionsThe present study found no persistent association between the socially differentiated CR intervention and use of healthcare services in general practice and hospital in patients admitted with first-episode MI during a 10-year follow-up.
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.