4.6 Article

Referral and Use of Heart Failure Clinics: What Factors Are Related to Use?

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 483-489

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2011.11.020

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada [HOA-80676]
  3. CIHR [MSH-80489]
  4. Ontario Women's Health Council/CIHR Institute of Gender and Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Heart failure (HF) clinics have been shown to reduce hospital readmissions and generally have favourable effects on quality of life, survival, and care costs. This study investigated the rates of referral and use of HF clinics and examined factors related to program use. Methods: This study represents a secondary analysis of a larger prospective cohort study conducted in Ontario. In hospital, 474 HF inpatients from 11 hospitals across Ontario completed a survey that examined predisposing, enabling, and need factors affecting HF clinic use. Then 1 year later, 271 HF patients completed a mailed survey that assessed referral to and use of HF clinics. Results: Forty-one patients (15.2%) self-reported referral, and 35 (13%) self-reported attending an HF clinic. Generalized estimating equations showed that factors related to greater program use were having an HF clinic at the site of hospital recruitment (odds ratio [OR] = 8.40; P = 0.04), referral to other disease management programs (OR = 4.87; P = 0.04), higher education (OR = 4.61; P = 0.02), lower stress (OR = 0.93; P = 0.03), and lower functional status (OR = 0.97; P = 0.03). Conclusion: Similar to previous research, only one-seventh of HF patients were referred to and used an HF clinic. Both patient-level and health-system factors were related to HF clinic use. Given the benefits of HF clinics, more research examining how equitable access can be increased is needed. Also, the appropriateness and cost repercussions of use of multiple disease management programs should be investigated.

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

4.6
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