Peer navigation did not significantly improve cardiac rehabilitation enrolment (p=0.24) or referral (p=0.45) compared to usual care among eligible cardiac inpatients.
RCT (n=94)
Single-blind
Parallel
No
Does peer navigation improve cardiac rehabilitation enrolment in CR-eligible adult cardiac inpatients?
In a tertiary center with eReferral, peer navigation did not significantly improve already high rates of cardiac rehabilitation referral or enrolment.
p-value: p=0.24
OBJECTIVES: To describe (1) cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral across cardiac units in a tertiary centre with eReferral; (2) characteristics associated with CR referral and enrolment and (3) the effects of peer navigation (PN) on referral and enrolment. This pilot was a 2 parallel-arm, randomised, single-blind trial with allocation concealment. SETTING: 3 cardiac units (ie, interventional, general cardiology, and cardiac surgery) in 1 of 2 hospitals of a tertiary centre. PARTICIPANTS: CR-eligible adult cardiac inpatients were randomised to PN or usual care. 94 (54.7%) patients consented, of which 46 (48.9%) were randomised to PN. Outcomes were ascertained in 76 (80.9%) participants. INTERVENTION: The PN (1) visited participant at the bedside, (2) mailed a card to participant's home reminding about CR and (3) called participant 2 weeks postdischarge to discuss CR barriers. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of enrolment was defined as participant attendance at a scheduled CR intake appointment (yes/no). The secondary outcome was referral. Blinded outcome assessment was conducted 12 weeks postdischarge, via CR chart extraction. RESULTS: Those who received care on the cardiac surgery unit (77.9%) were more likely to be referred than those treated on the general cardiology (61.1%) or interventional unit (33.3%; p=0.04). Patients who had cardiac surgery, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were significantly more likely, and those with congenital heart disease, cancer and a previous cardiac diagnosis were less likely to be referred. Participants referred to a site closer to home (76.2% of those referred) were more likely to enrol than those not (23.7%, p<0.05). PN had no effect on referral (77.6%, p=0.45) or enrolment (46.0%, p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in CR referral, even within academic centres, and despite eReferral. Referral was quite high, and thus, PN did not improve CR utilisation. Results support triaging patients to the CR programme closest to their home. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02204449; Results.
Ali-Faisal et al. (Tue,) conducted a rct in Cardiac rehabilitation eligibility (n=94). Peer navigation vs. Usual care was evaluated on Enrolment (participant attendance at a scheduled CR intake appointment) (p=0.24). Peer navigation did not significantly improve cardiac rehabilitation enrolment (p=0.24) or referral (p=0.45) compared to usual care among eligible cardiac inpatients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: