ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
A Comparison of Barrier Factors between Hospitals with and without Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Korea: A Nation-Wide Survey Research.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A 5-Year Nationwide Study in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Observational
- Impact of Cardiac Rehabilitation Health Insurance Coverage on Cardiac Rehabilitation Use in Korea Using an Interrupted Time Series.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Fact Sheet on Cardiac Rehabilitation for Cardiovascular Disease in South Korea.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Barriers to Participation in Cardiac Rehabilitation Among Patients with Coronary Heart Disease After Reperfusion Therapy: A Scoping Review.Vascular health and risk management · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The percentage of patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) is very low (30-40%), and hospitals providing CRP are either insufficient or lacking, even in countries with advanced medical care; therefore, this study aims to investigate the barriers, as well as compare the differences between hospitals, with or without CRP. We conducted a survey, in which the questionnaire was distributed through post or email to 607 specialists who work at 164 hospitals performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The results were as follows: (1) of the 164 hospitals, 132 responded (response rate: 80.5%). While all 47 hospitals with CRP responded (100%), from among the 117 hospitals without CRP, 85 responded (72.7%). (2) Of the 607 specialists, 227 responded (response rate: 36.9%). The response rates according to specialties were as follows: cardiologists (28.9%), cardiac surgeons (24.5%), and physiatrists (64.1%). (3) While the specialists at hospitals with CRP identified patient referral, transportation, and cost as the major barriers, for those at hospitals without CRP, all items were considered barriers, especially the items related to equipment, space, workforce, and budget as being more serious barriers. Therefore, in order to actively promote CRP, it is suggested that governments consider the customized support system according to the performance of CRPs.
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.