ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Cardiac Rehabilitation for Type 1 vs Type 2 Myocardial Infarction.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended after myocardial infarction (MI), but perceptions of its role after type 2 MI remain unclear.
objectivesThe aim of the study is to assess clinician and patient perceptions of CR benefits and safety after type 2 MI, clinician-reported referral frequency, and the willingness of patients to participate.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 118 clinicians from 2,250 invitations across Mass General Brigham completed a survey comparing perceptions of CR after type 1 vs type 2 MI. Fifty type 2 MI inpatients at a single academic center completed a survey assessing perceptions of CR.
resultsAmong 110 clinicians with complete paired responses, fewer self-reported "always" or "often" referring patients after type 2 MI vs type 1 MI (30.0% vs 80.0%; paired difference: -50.0 percentage points; 95% CI: -59.4 to -40.2; P < 0.001), and fewer perceived CR as beneficial (69.1% vs 98.2%; paired difference: -29.1 percentage points; 95% CI: -38.2 to -21.4; P < 0.001). Most clinicians perceived CR as safe although slightly fewer rated it as safe after type 2 MI (92.7% vs 99.1%; paired difference: -6.4 percentage points; 95% CI: -12.6 to -2.8; P = 0.02). Among patients with type 2 MI, 90% perceived CR as beneficial, 80% believed CR would improve safety returning to activity, and 82% would likely attend if referred.
conclusionsClinicians self-reported lower CR referral frequency after type 2 MI than after type 1 MI, with lower perceived benefit and barriers related to CR eligibility and referral process familiarity. Most patients with type 2 MI perceive CR as beneficial and report hypothetical willingness to participate if referred.
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.