ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Narrative Review of Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based secondary prevention strategy for patients with cardiovascular disease, yet participation in conventional center-based programs remains low. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) has emerged as an alternative delivery model intended to reduce access barriers while preserving the core components of CR. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes contemporary evidence and implementation literature on HBCR, with emphasis on clinical effectiveness, digital and hybrid delivery models, equity, and health-system implementation. Results: Current evidence indicates that HBCR can achieve outcomes comparable to center-based CR in selected clinically stable, low- to moderate-risk patients, including similar effects on mortality, morbidity, exercise capacity, and cardiovascular risk-factor modification. Digital health tools and hybrid models may improve reach, adherence, monitoring, and personalization. However, implementation remains uneven, reimbursement pathways are inconsistent, and many studies have limited representation of women, racial and ethnic minority groups, older adults, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and patients with complex comorbidities. Conclusion: HBCR should be viewed as a complementary model within comprehensive CR rather than a universal replacement for center-based services. Future work should prioritize transparent implementation frameworks, equitable digital access, long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and identification of patients best served by home-based, center-based, or hybrid CR models.
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.