ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2023
National survey of Australian cardiac rehabilitation programmes: does current exercise programming adhere to evidence-based guidelines and best practice?
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of Field Tests for Predicting Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Prescribing Exercise Intensity in Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Heatwaves and Heart Health: A Survey Study and Discussion on the Current Knowledge and Attitudes of Cardiac Rehabilitation Clinicians.Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The efficacy of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for patient outcomes is well established, with better outcomes when delivery meets recommended guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess how well Australian practice aligns with national CR guidelines for exercise assessment and prescription. Method: This cross-sectional online survey was distributed to all 475 publicly listed CR services in Australia and consisted of four sections: (1) Programme and client demographics, (2) aerobic exercise characteristics, (3) resistance exercise characteristics and (4) pre-exercise assessment, exercise testing and progression. Results: In total, 228 (54%) survey responses were received. Only three of five Australian guideline recommendations were consistently reported to be followed in current CR programmes: assessment of physical function prior to exercise (91%), prescription of light-moderate exercise intensity (76%) and review of referring physician results (75%). Remaining guidelines were commonly not implemented. For example, only 58% of services reported an initial assessment of resting ECG/heart rate, and only 58% reported the concurrent prescription of both aerobic and resistance exercise, which may have been influenced by equipment availability (p<0.05). Exercise-specific assessments such as muscular strength (18%) and aerobic fitness (13%) were uncommonly reported, although both were more frequent in metropolitan services (p<0.05) or when an exercise physiologist was present (p<0.05). Conclusions: Clinically relevant deficits in national CR guideline implementation are common, potentially influenced by location, exercise supervisor and equipment availability. Key deficiencies include the lack of concurrent aerobic and resistance exercise prescription and infrequent assessment of important physiological outcomes including resting heart rate, muscular strength and aerobic fitness.
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.