3.8 Article

Deciding to attend cardiac rehabilitation: A female perspective

Journal

Publisher

MA HEALTHCARE LTD
DOI: 10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.4.41194

Keywords

cardiac rehabilitation; female attendance; interpretative phenomenological analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Despite the documented benefits, women have been found to have both lower rates of cardiac rehabilitation attendance and completion than men. This article explores women's decisions to attend cardiac rehabilitation. The aim was to provide an analysis of how women think about their illness and cardiac rehabilitation, and examine how this relates to their decisions about whether or not to attend a cardiac rehabilitation programme. Methods: A qualitative cross-sectional design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five women who had decided to attend cardiac rehabilitation, and three women who had declined cardiac rehabilitation. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was conducted on the transcripts. Findings: The declining group believed their understanding to be complete, from having experienced a previous cardiac event, whereas the attending group were in the preliminary stages of making sense of their condition. The attending group valued the support offered from others and cardiac rehabilitation, whereas the declining group described an independent attitude and did not perceive a need for cardiac rehabilitation. The experience of negative emotions was evident in both the attending and declining groups. However, the attending participants had greater perceptions of control over the condition compared to the declining group. Conclusions: Based on this preliminary research, recognizing the need for control, identifying and receiving social support, and valuing the role of cardiac rehabilitation are factors influencing whether women decide to attend cardiac rehabilitation. Illness and cardiac rehabilitation beliefs should be targeted at the time of in-patient assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available