ArticleBMJ open2019
Development of standardised programme content for phase II cardiac rehabilitation programmes in Australia using a modified Delphi process.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based rehabilitation medicine: definition, foundation, practice and development.Medical review (2021) · 2024Review
- No transport? No worries! Cardiac telerehabilitation is a feasible and effective alternative to centre-based programs.Heart failure reviews · 2023Review
- Hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation for coronary artery disease in Australia: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Impact of Early COVID-19 Waves on Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery in Australia: A National Survey.Heart, lung & circulation · 2023Article
- Textbook outcomes in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a Delphi study to establish consensus.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Article
- Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop standardised programme content for Australian phase II cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme.
designUsing the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM), a two-phase process including a comprehensive literature review and a two round modified Delphi process was undertaken to develop and validate content of a standardised CR programmes.
participantsAn invited multidisciplinary expert advisory group (EAG; n=16), including CR health professionals (nurses, allied health professionals, cardiologist), academics, policy makers, representation from the Australian Cardiovascular Health and Rehabilitation Association and consumers, provided oversight of the literature review and assisted with development of best practice statements. Twelve members of the EAG went onto participate in the modified Delphi process rating the necessity of statements in two rounds on a scale of 1 (not necessary) to 9 (essential).
main outcome measureBest practice statements that achieved a median score of ≥8 on a nine-point scale were categorised as 'essential'; statements that achieved a median score of ≥6 were categorised as 'desirable' and statements with a median score of <6 were omitted.
results49 best practice statements were developed from the literature across ten areas of care within four module domains (CR foundations, developing heart health knowledge, psychosocial health and life beyond CR). At the end of a two-round validation process a total of 47 best practice statements were finalised; 29 statements were rated as essential, 18 as desirable and 2 statements were omitted.
conclusionsFor the first time in Australia, an evidence-based and consensus-led standardised programme content for phase II CR has been developed that can be provided to CR coordinators.
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.