Why the study?
Does systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral improve equitable access and utilization in coronary artery disease inpatients?
Population
2,635 coronary artery disease inpatients from 11 Ontario hospitals
Comparison
Systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation… vs Nonsystematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
1 year
Key result
Systematic inpatient referral strategies significantly increased overall cardiac rehabilitation referral to 77.2% compared to 48.4% with non-systematic referral, and improved enrollment among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.
Authors
Loading...
May boost equitable CR access in disadvantaged CAD patients; hypothesis-generating for RCTs before practice change.
Observational (n=2,635)
Yes
Does systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral improve equitable access and utilization in coronary artery disease inpatients?
Absolute Event Rate: 77.2% vs 48.4%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral improves equitable access and utilization, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with higher clinical risk.
Grace et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=2,635). Systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral vs. Non-systematic referral was evaluated on Overall cardiac rehabilitation referral (p=<0.0001). Systematic inpatient referral strategies significantly increased overall cardiac rehabilitation referral to 77.2% compared to 48.4% with non-systematic referral, and improved enrollment among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: