Key result
CABIN proves feasible post-STEMI and drives 100% cardiac rehabilitation enrollment versus usual care.
Why the study?
To conduct feasibility testing and a process evaluation of the CArdiac Brief INtervention (CABIN), with a preliminary assessment of impact in patients with STEMI.
Does a brief psychoeducational intervention (CABIN) improve feasibility, psychological wellbeing, and cardiac rehabilitation enrolment in patients post-STEMI?
RCT (n=40)
1:1 allocation ratio
Yes
Does a brief psychoeducational intervention (CABIN) improve feasibility, psychological wellbeing, and cardiac rehabilitation enrolment in patients post-STEMI?
A brief, single-session psychoeducational intervention (CABIN) is feasible and shows preliminary efficacy in improving psychological wellbeing and cardiac rehabilitation uptake in post-STEMI patients.
Supports CABIN feasibility assessment post-STEMI; extends pilot RCT data for a definitive efficacy trial.
AIMS: To conduct feasibility testing and a process evaluation of CArdiac Brief INtervention (CABIN), with a preliminary assessment of impact in patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: A two-arm, parallel group, pilot randomised controlled trial with a concurrent, mixed-method design was conducted. Forty patients were recruited post-STEMI from two hospital centres in the United Kingdom (UK). Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (CABIN) or control (usual care) group using a 1:1 allocation ratio. CABIN delivered psychoeducational support via a single, one-to-one session (approximately 20 minutes) with patients post-STEMI before hospital discharge. Feasibility and process evaluation data were collected from patients and cardiology staff. Patient-related outcomes were assessed at four timepoints (TPs): baseline, post-intervention, four weeks from diagnosis, and fourteen weeks from diagnosis. The findings demonstrated favourable recruitment (13.3 patients per month), data completeness (≥ 87.5% at each TP), and acceptability (positive feedback with no major revisions identified). Larger, favourable changes (Hedges' g > 0.8) were documented for all patient-related outcomes (disease knowledge; illness perception; anxiety and depression; and health status and confidence) in the intervention group across the TPs. All participants (100%) of the intervention sub-group enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to 50% of the control sub-group. CONCLUSION: CABIN was feasible and acceptable to patients. Preliminary evidence suggests a potential, positive impact on disease knowledge, psychological wellbeing, and CR enrolment. CABIN will progress to an effectiveness and implementation evaluation, informing potential integration with routine clinical practice in the UK. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05848674.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) (n=40). CArdiac Brief INtervention (CABIN) vs. usual care was evaluated on Feasibility and process evaluation. The CArdiac Brief INtervention (CABIN) was feasible in post-STEMI patients, yielding favorable changes in patient-related outcomes and 100% cardiac rehabilitation enrollment vs 50% in controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: