ArticlePloS one2026
Delivery of cardiac rehabilitation through hybrid models and alternative settings by country income classification and decade: Comparisons from the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation's 2025 Global Audit Update.
Article in PloS one, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an outpatient model of secondary prevention that improves patient outcomes, yet use remains limited. Hybrid/alternative CR addresses these challenges, but global availability, structure, and volumes have not been characterized since the pandemic.
methodsThe International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation's (ICCPR) 2025 Audit Update is a cross-sectional survey of phase II CR programs worldwide. After member Associations supported identification of countries with CR, program data were collected via REDCap between May-September/2025. Data were compared by country income classification, and with prior ICCPR Audits where possible.
resultsOf 6,905 CR programs identified globally, 1,505 initiated a survey (median program response rate = 62.3% per country) from 90/113 (79.6%) countries with CR. Globally, 286 (23.2%) programs in 40 (35.4%) countries reported reimbursement for hybrid/alternative models, varying significantly by country income class (p < 0.001); this was higher than 2016 (14.5%), but not significantly different from the pandemic (21.0%). 285 (31.1%) programs reported offering a hybrid/alternative CR model, in 57 (50.4% with CR) countries (higher in lower-middle income countries, then upper-middle income countries [UMICs]). This was not higher than previous Audits. Programs were staffed by exercise professionals, nurses and physicians (more in UMICs). Dose was a median of 10 sessions (one/week over 8 weeks), lower than centre-based, but consistent across income classes and over time. Patients were allocated to model based on clinical criteria, choice (69.5%), but also cost (30.2%; higher in middle-income countries and than 2016). Hybrid/alternative models served a median of 50 (P25-P75 = 10-100) patients/program annually, lower than centre-based (median = 135; p < 0.001); volumes were higher in UMICs. 160 (45.8%) programs perceived insufficient capacity to meet demand, most commonly due to staffing and funding.
conclusionsHybrid/alternative CR availability has not increased since 2016, and decreased since the pandemic. Reimbursement drives availability, but remains limited and inadequate, frequently shifting costs to patients, constraining services and limiting equitable scale-up.
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.