4.5 Review

Determinants of referral to cardiac rehabilitation programs in patients with coronary artery disease:: A systematic review

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 151, 期 2, 页码 249-256

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.03.034

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Despite the documented efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a minority of patients with diagnosed coronary artery disease are referred. Although referral is a necessary step in the promotion of CR uptake, little is known about its determinants. Purpose The objective of this paper was to systematically review the available literature on factors predicting referral of patients to CR to appraise both their relative impact and consistency across studies. Methods Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966-2003), CINAHL (1982-2003), HealthSTAR (1975-2003), EMBASE (1966-2003), and The Cochrane Library Controlled Trials. Search terms were myocardial infarction, acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, combined with rehabilitation, cardiac rehabilitation, secondary prevention, exercise training, referral, and/or consultation. Forty-five studies were identified and independently assessed by 2 reviewers using predetermined eligibility criteria. Results Ten published observational studies (1999-2004) including 30333 coronary artery disease patients were selected. Determinants of referral to CR were grouped as sociodemographic, health status, and health care system factors Major predictors were English speaking (RR 9.56, 95% CI 2.18-41.93), prior myocardial infarction (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.69-4.42), being admitted to hospitals providing CR (RR 5.35, 95% CI 4.04-7.10), and having insurance coverage (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.13-7.66). Conclusion This review highlights disparities in referral to CR and reveals a treatment gap in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Precise estimates of the impact of all factors on referral are not possible, but some hierarchies and potential priorities for action are evident.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据