Objective. Cardiovascular diseases are among the leading causes of morbidity in China and around the world. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) effectively mitigates this burden; however, utilization is low. CR barriers in China have not been well characterized; this study sought to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and psychometrically validate the CR Barriers Scale in Chinese/Mandarin (CRBS-C/M). Methods. Independent translations of the 21-item CRBS were conducted by two bilingual health professionals, followed by back-translation. A Delphi process was undertaken with five experts to consider the semantics and cross-cultural relevance of the items. Following finalization, 380 cardiac patients from 11 hospitals in Shanghai were administered a validation survey including the translated CRBS. Following exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency was assessed. Validity was tested through assessing the association of the CRBS-C/M with the CR Information Awareness Questionnaire. Results. Items were refined and finalized. Factor analysis of CRBS-C/M ( Kaiser   Meyer   Olkin = 0.867 , Bartlett’s test p < 0.001 ) revealed five factors: perceived CR need, external logistical factors, time conflicts, program and health system-level factors, and comorbidities/lack of vitality; Cronbach’s alpha ( α ) of the subscales ranged from 0.67 to 0.82. The mean total CRBS score was significantly lower in patients who participated in CR compared with those who did not, demonstrating criterion validity ( 2.35 ± 0.71 vs. 3.08 ± 0.55 ; p < 0.001 ). Construct validity was supported by the significant associations between total CRBS scores and CR awareness, sex, living situation, city size, income, diagnosis/procedure, disease severity, and several risk factors (all p < 0.05 ). Conclusions. CRBS-C/M is reliable and valid, so barriers can be identified and mitigated in Mandarin-speaking patients.

Rationale, aim, and objectives Heart failure (HF) clinics are highly effective, yet not optimally utilized. A realist review was performed to identify contexts (eg, health system characteristics, clinic capacity, and siting) and underlying mechanisms (eg, referring provider knowledge of clinics and referral criteria, barriers in disadvantaged patients) that influence utilization (provider referral [ie, of all appropriate and no inappropriate patients] and access [ie, patient attends ≥1 visit]) of HF clinics. Methods Following an initial scoping search and field observation in a HF clinic, we developed an initial program theory in conjunction with our expert panel, which included patient partners. Then, a literature search of seven databases was searched from inception to December 2019, including Medline; Grey literature was also searched. Studies of any design or editorials were included; studies regarding access to cardiac rehabilitation, or a single specialist for example, were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, and then full‐texts. Relevant data from included articles were used to refine the program theory. Results A total of 29 papers from five countries (three regions) were included. There was limited information to support or refute many elements of our initial program theory (eg, referring provider knowledge/beliefs, clinic inclusion/exclusion criteria), but refinements were made (eg, specialized care provided in each clinic, lack of patient encouragement). Lack of capacity, geography, and funding arrangements were identified as contextual factors, explaining a range of mechanistic processes, including patient clinical characteristics and social determinants of health as well as clinic characteristics that help to explain inappropriate and low use of HF clinics (outcome). Conclusion Given the burden of HF and benefit of HF clinics, more research is needed to understand, and hence overcome sub‐optimal use of HF clinics. In particular, an understanding from the perspective of referring providers is needed.

No abstract

No abstract