ArticleHealth literacy research and practice2025
Exploring Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Across Health Literacy Levels.
Article in Health literacy research and practice, 2025. 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.
- Personalized Smartphone Messaging for Secondary Prevention After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Bridging the health literacy gap in cardiac rehabilitation through intervention and program design.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the barriers to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation across individuals with different levels of health literacy. A cross-sectional study was conducted among individuals referred to a CR program. Participants completed online surveys assessing CR barriers using the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale and health literacy using the Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool. Descriptive statistics and comparisons were performed. Among 881 individuals invited, 400 responded, with varying levels of health literacy: 22(6%) limited, 305(76%) marginal, and 72(18%) adequate. The greatest barriers included family responsibilities, lack of energy, and a preference for managing health alone. However, distinct patterns emerged based on health literacy levels, with individuals citing different barriers. Although no significant differences were observed in CR barriers based on health literacy, understanding individual-specific challenges is crucial for intervention development. Addressing common barriers such as family responsibilities and logistical challenges could enhance CR engagement and adherence. [
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.