Observational studySao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Publicly versus privately funded cardiac rehabilitation: access and adherence barriers. A cross-sectional study.
Observational study in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation, Cultural Adaptation of the Portuguese Provider Attitudes toward Cardiac Rehabilitation and Referral (PACRR-P) Scale and Assessment of Its' Measurement Properties.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Arabic Version of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS-A) with Strategies to Mitigate Barriers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Participation Among Rural Residents With Cardiovascular Disease in Brazil.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Review
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR) barriers are well-understood in high-resource settings. However, they are under-studied in low-resource settings, where access is even poorer and the context is significantly different, including two-tiered healthcare systems and greater socioeconomic challenges.
objectiveTo investigate differences in characteristics of patients attending publicly versus privately funded CR and their barriers to adherence. DESIGN AND
settingObservational, cross-sectional study in public and private CR programs offered in Brazil.
methodsPatients who had been attending CR for ≥ 3 months were recruited from one publicly and one privately funded CR program. They completed assessments regarding sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the CR Barriers Scale.
resultsFrom the public program, 74 patients were recruited, and from the private, 100. Participants in the public program had significantly lower educational attainment (P < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic status (P < 0.001). Participants in the private program had more cognitive impairment (P = 0.015), and in the public program more anxiety (P = 0.001) and depressive symptoms (P = 0.008) than their counterparts. Total barriers among public CR participants were significantly higher than those among private CR participants (1.34 ± 0.26 versus 1.23 ± 0.15/5]; P = 0.003), as were scores on 3 out of 5 subscales, namely: comorbidities/functional status (P = 0.027), perceived need (P < 0.001) and access (P = 0.012).
conclusionPublicly funded programs need to be tailored to meet their patients' requirements, through consideration of educational and psychosocial matters, and be amenable to mitigation of patient barriers relating to presence of comorbidities and poorer health status.
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.