ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
A pragmatic effectiveness-implementation study comparing trial evidence with routinely collected outcome data for patients receiving the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac rehabilitation patient perspectives during COVID-19 pandemic: quantitative and qualitative study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac rehabilitation for heart failure continues to be greatly underused worldwide despite being a Class I recommendation in international clinical guidelines and uptake is low in women and patients with mental health comorbidities.
methodsRehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) programme was implemented in four UK National Health Service early adopter sites ('Beacon Sites') between June 2019 and June 2020. Implementation and patient-reported outcome data were collected across sites as part of the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation. The change in key outcomes before and after the supervised period of REACH-HF intervention across the Beacon Sites was assessed and compared to those of the intervention arm of the REACH-HF multicentre trial.
resultsCompared to the REACH-HF multicentre trial, patients treated at the Beacon Site were more likely to be female (33.8% vs 22.9%), older (75.6 vs 70.1), had a more severe classification of heart failure (26.5% vs 17.7%), had poorer baseline health-related quality of life (MLHFQ score 36.1 vs 31.4), were more depressed (HADS score 6.4 vs 4.1) and anxious (HADS score 7.2 vs 4.7), and had lower exercise capacity (ISWT distance 190 m vs 274.7 m). There appeared to be a substantial heterogeneity in the implementation process across the four Beacon Sites as evidenced by the variation in levels of patient recruitment, operationalisation of the REACH-HF intervention and patient outcomes. Overall lower improvements in patient-reported outcomes at the Beacon Sites compared to the trial may reflect differences in the population studied (having higher morbidity at baseline) as well as the marked challenges in intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
conclusionThe results of this study illustrate the challenges in consistently implementing an intervention (shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multicentre trial) into real-world practice, especially in the midst of a global pandemic. Further research is needed to establish the real-world effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in different populations.
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.