New strategies and instruments are needed to promote a patient-clinician partnership and actively engage patients in symptom monitoring and recognition. Easy-to-use and practical instruments for patients to monitor symptoms may lead to appropriate and accurate reporting as well as improved symptom management. Although the instruments used in this study resulted in symptom monitoring, appropriate action was not undertaken as a result of such monitoring.
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a class I treatment for cardiovascular disease, however, underutilization of these services remains. Home-based CR (HBCR) models have been implemented as a potential solution to addressing access barriers to CR services. Home-based models have been shown to be effective, however, there continues to be large variation of protocols and minimal evidence of effectiveness in higher risk populations. In addition, lack of reimbursement models has discouraged the widespread adoption of HBCR. During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an even greater gap in CR care has been present due to decreased availability of on-site services. The COVID-19 pandemic presents a time to highlight the value and experiences of home-based models as clinicians search for ways to continue to provide care. Continued review and standardization of HBCR models are essential to provide care for a wider range of patients and circumstances.
Objectives: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) provides significant benefit for persons with cardiovascular disease. However, access to CR services may be limited by driving distance, costs, need for a driver, time away from work, or being a family primary caregiver. The primary aim of the project was to test the reach (i.e., patient and provider uptake), effectiveness (safety and clinical outcomes), and implementation (time and costs) of a remote telephone-based Phase 2 CR program. A secondary aim was to compare outcomes between patients attending the remote program (home-CR) and those attending an on-site program (comparison group). Subjects and Methods: Subjects were given a choice of the remote or face-to-face program. Remote CR participants (n = 48) received education and assessment during 12 weekly by telephone calls. Data were compared with those for face-to-face CR program participants (n = 14). Independent t tests and chi-squared tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance models were used to assess differences in outcomes. Costs were analyzed using a cost-minimization analysis. Results: Of 107 eligible patients, 45 refused participation, 5 dropped out, and 1 died unrelated to the study. Participants had a mean age of 64 (standard deviation 7.5) years. Remote CR participants were highly satisfied with their care and had a higher completion rate (89% of authorized sessions versus 73% of face-to-face). Costs for each program were comparable. There were no significant changes over time in any measured outcome between groups at 12 weeks except medication adherence, which decreased over time in both groups; face-to-face patients reported a greater decrease (p = 0.05).Conclusions: This is the first study to test a remote CR program in a population of older Veterans. Many hospitals do not provide comprehensive CR services on-site; thus remote CR is a viable alternative to bring services closer to the patient.
Purpose: The conceptual utility of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is widely acknowledged. However, data substantiating its effectiveness and safety are limited. This study evaluated effectiveness and safety of the Veterans Affairs (VA) national HBCR program. Methods: Veterans completed a 12-wk HBCR program over 18 mo at 25 geographically dispersed VA hospitals. Pre- to post-changes were compared using paired t tests. Patient satisfaction and adverse events were also summarized descriptively. Results: Of the 923 Veterans with a mean age of 67.3 ± 10.6 yr enrolled in the HBCR program, 572 (62%) completed it. Findings included significant improvements in exercise capacity (6-min walk test distance: 355 vs 398 m; P < .05; Duke Activity Status Index: 27.1 vs 33.5; P < .05; self-reported steps/d: 3150 vs 4166; P < .05); depression measured by Patient Health Questionnaire (6.4 vs 4.9; P < .0001); cardiac self-efficacy (33.1 vs 39.2; P < .0001); body mass index (31.5 vs 31.1 kg/m2; P = .0001); and eating habits measured by Rate Your Plate, Heart (47.2 vs 51.1; P < .05). No safety issues were related to HBCR participation. Participants were highly satisfied. Conclusions: The VA HBCR program demonstrates strong evidence of effectiveness and safety to a wide range of patients, including those with high clinical complexity and risk. HBCR provides an adjunct to site-based programs and access to cardiac rehabilitation. Additional research is needed to assess long-term effects, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of the model.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.