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.
Why the study?
Does systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral improve equitable access and utilization in coronary artery disease inpatients?
Observational (n=2,635)
Yes
Does systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral improve equitable access and utilization in coronary artery disease inpatients?
Systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral improves equitable access and utilization, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with higher clinical risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May boost equitable CR access in disadvantaged CAD patients; hypothesis-generating for RCTs before practice change.
In Brief BACKGROUND: While systematic referral strategies have been shown to significantly increase cardiac rehabilitation (CR) enrollment to approximately 70%, whether utilization rates increase among patient groups who are traditionally underrepresented has yet to be established. This study compared CR utilization based on age, marital status, rurality, socioeconomic indicators, clinical risk, and comorbidities following systematic versus nonsystematic CR referral. METHODS: Coronary artery disease inpatients (N = 2635) from 11 Ontario hospitals, utilizing either systematic (n = 8 wards) or nonsystematic referral strategies (n = 8 wards), completed a survey including sociodemographics and activity status. Clinical data were extracted from charts. At 1 year, 1680 participants completed a mailed survey that assessed CR utilization. The association of patient characteristics and referral strategy on CR utilization was tested using χ2. RESULTS: When compared to nonsystematic referral, systematic strategies resulted in significantly greater CR referral and enrollment among obese (32 vs 27% referred, P = .044; 33 vs 26% enrolled, P = .047) patients of lower socioeconomic status (41 vs 34% referred, P = .026; 42 vs 32% enrolled, P = .005); and lower activity status (63 vs 54% referred, P = .005; 62 vs 51% enrolled, P = .002). There was significantly greater enrollment among those of lower education (P = .04) when systematically referred; however, no significant differences in degree of CR participation based on referral strategy. CONCLUSION: Up to 11% more socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with more risk factors utilized CR where systematic processes were in place. They participated in CR to the same high degree as their nonsystematically referred counterparts. These referral strategies should be implemented to promote equitable access. This study compared cardiac rehabilitation (CR) utilization based on demographics, socioeconomic indicators, clinical risk, and comorbidities following systematic versus nonsystematic inpatient CR referral among 2635 coronary artery disease inpatients. Up to 11% more socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with more risk factors utilized CR where systematic processes were in place.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
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 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: