Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
June 26, 2018Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention

Time spent in MVPA and SB did not change over 6 weeks, but exercise capacity and light-intensity PA significantly improved (P < .01).

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Does a 6-week cardiac rehabilitation program improve objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior in CR participants?

Population

72 cardiac rehabilitation participants, mean age 64.2 ± 9.6 years, 79% male.

Comparison

6-week cardiac rehabilitation program vs Baseline (beginning of the 6-week program)

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

6 weeks

Authors

NFNicole FreeneMMMargaret McManusTMTarryn Mair

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Unchanged SB during 6-week CR warrants caution assuming automatic gains; leaves open whether adjunctive strategies improve long-term patterns.

Key Points

  • To objectively evaluate longitudinal changes in physical activity and sedentary behavior among participants completing a 6-week cardiac rehabilitation program.
  • Prospective cohort study evaluating 72 cardiac rehabilitation participants (mean age 64.2 ± 9.6 years; 79% male).
  • Participants wore an ActiGraph ActiSleep accelerometer for 7 consecutive days at baseline and at the conclusion of the 6-week program to quantify sedentary behavior (<100 counts/min) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).
  • Additional assessments included the 6-minute walk test for exercise capacity, questionnaire-based physical activity and sedentary time, anthropometrics, lipid and glucose panels, quality of life, and psychological distress.
  • Sedentary behavior and MVPA did not significantly change over the 6-week period, with participants averaging 11.8 ± 1.1 hours/day of sedentary time and 9.5 ± 14.7 minutes/day of MVPA at program conclusion.
  • Exercise capacity assessed via the 6-minute walk test and accelerometer-measured light-intensity physical activity improved significantly across the 6-week intervention (P < .01).

Structured PICO

Does a 6-week cardiac rehabilitation program improve objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior in CR participants?

P
Population
72 cardiac rehabilitation participants, mean age 64.2 ± 9.6 years, 79% male.
I
Intervention
6-week cardiac rehabilitation program
C
Comparator
Baseline (beginning of the 6-week program)
O
Outcome
Daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary behavior (SB) assessed via accelerometer over 6 weekssurrogate

A 6-week cardiac rehabilitation program improved exercise capacity and light-intensity physical activity but did not significantly change time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity or sedentary behavior.

Cite This Study

Freene et al. (2018) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a72822b84cc45bb7be021b4https://doi.org/10.1097/hcr.0000000000000334
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a phase III cardiac rehabilitation program: identifying vulnerable subgroups2026
  2. 2Predicting Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors After Cardiac Rehabilitation: An Observational Study2024
  3. 3Physical Activity Habits of Cardiac Patients Participating in an Early Outpatient Rehabilitation Program2009 · 23 citations
  4. 4Association of device-measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour with cardiovascular risk factors, health-related quality-of-life and exercise capacity over 12-months in cardiac rehabilitation attendees with coronary heart disease2022 · 14 citations
  5. 5Sedentary behaviour in cardiovascular disease patients: Risk group identification and the impact of cardiac rehabilitation2020 · 101 citations