Why the study?
Does a home-based cardiac rehabilitation program improve coronary heart disease risk factors as effectively as traditional cardiac rehabilitation in patients after a cardiac event?
Does a home-based cardiac rehabilitation program improve coronary heart disease risk factors as effectively as traditional cardiac rehabilitation in patients after a cardiac event?
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation is a viable alternative to traditional programs for modifying most cardiovascular risk factors, which may help address low enrollment rates in traditional center-based programs.
May support home-CR for most risk factors; leaves open anger effects and needs RCTs before practice change.
Because fewer than half of cardiac patients in the United States enroll in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, there is a critical need to test alternative strategies of delivering CR services. This study tested whether a home-based CR (home-CR) program was at least as effective as traditional-CR (trad-CR) in the modification of coronary heart disease risk factors from the beginning of CR (baseline) to 2 and 4 months later. A repeated measures non-inferiority quasi-experimental design was used to examine changes in risk factors. Participants selected which CR program, traditional versus home-based, in which to participate: 37 patients chose trad-CR and 24 patients chose home-CR. The following indicators of risk factors were measured: smoking, blood pressure, frequency of aerobic exercise, cholesterol, amount of dietary fat, frequency of anger, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Home-CR was found to be as effective as trad-CR in modification of cardiac risk factors including BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, frequency of aerobic exercise, total cholesterol, and a low fat diet. Home-CR was not as effective as trad-CR in reducing the frequency of anger. These findings provide support for an alternative method of delivering cardiac rehabilitation services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yates et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: