Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31796485›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Development of standardised programme content for phase II cardiac rehabilitation programmes in Australia using a modified Delphi process.

Susie Cartledge, Emma Thomas, Kerry Hollier, R Maddison

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susie CartledgeInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia susie.cartledge@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6837-2244
Emma ThomasInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Kerry HollierNational Heart Foundation of Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
R MaddisonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Deakin University · AUNational Heart Foundation of Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AustraliaCardiac RehabilitationConsensusDelphi TechniqueEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHumansMalePractice Guidelines as Topicbest practicecardiac rehabilitationconsensusinterdisciplinary studiespatient educationrehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID31796485
PMCPMC7003389
OpenAlexW2992123759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.