Key result
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation allocation was related to higher functional capacity (DASI score 44.6 vs 39.5, p<0.01) but unrelated to geographic factors like drive time or distance.
Why the study?
Are clinical and geographic factors associated with the use of home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac outpatients?
Population
1268 cardiac outpatients recruited from 97 cardiologist practices
Comparison
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation vs Hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
9 months
Authors
Loading...
Functional status may guide home-based allocation more than geography; leaves open whether targeted referral improves participation.
Observational (n=373)
Yes
Are clinical and geographic factors associated with the use of home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac outpatients?
Absolute Event Rate: 44.6% vs 39.5%
p-value: p=<0.01
Participation in home-based cardiac rehabilitation is low and appears to be driven by clinical activity status rather than geographic barriers, suggesting an opportunity for more targeted allocation to improve participation.
Brual et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Coronary Artery Disease (n=373). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation vs. Hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) score (p=<0.01). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation allocation was related to higher functional capacity (DASI score 44.6 vs 39.5, p<0.01) but unrelated to geographic factors like drive time or distance.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: