Gabrielle McKee1. 1. Trinity College Dublin School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies in collaboration with Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit, St. James Hospital Dublin, Ireland. gmckee@tcd.ie
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to observe changes in quality of life and minimal clinical important differences of quality of life over time in cardiac rehabilitation patients and to compare these with published normal data. METHODS: In this non-randomised study, SF36 questionnaires were completed by 187 patients recruited to a Phase III cardiac rehabilitation multidisciplinary outpatient programme. Data was collected at beginning, end and six months after Phase III cardiac rehabilitation programme. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in physical functioning, role limitation due to physical function, pain and general health perception scales, over the above time frame, from both a statistically and a mean clinical important difference point of view. These improvements occurred mainly during the cardiac rehabilitation programme phase. CONCLUSIONS: These improvements meant that patients six months post-cardiac rehabilitation were only 5% below the quality of life for an aged matched normal group. However patients still had significant deficits in physical role and emotional role limitations. Suitable measurement of quality of life on an individual basis, supported by normal values is needed. This would facilitate the identification of shortfalls in patient quality of life and the subsequent tailoring of care to address these individualised patient needs.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to observe changes in quality of life and minimal clinical important differences of quality of life over time in cardiac rehabilitation patients and to compare these with published normal data. METHODS: In this non-randomised study, SF36 questionnaires were completed by 187 patients recruited to a Phase III cardiac rehabilitation multidisciplinary outpatient programme. Data was collected at beginning, end and six months after Phase III cardiac rehabilitation programme. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in physical functioning, role limitation due to physical function, pain and general health perception scales, over the above time frame, from both a statistically and a mean clinical important difference point of view. These improvements occurred mainly during the cardiac rehabilitation programme phase. CONCLUSIONS: These improvements meant that patients six months post-cardiac rehabilitation were only 5% below the quality of life for an aged matched normal group. However patients still had significant deficits in physical role and emotional role limitations. Suitable measurement of quality of life on an individual basis, supported by normal values is needed. This would facilitate the identification of shortfalls in patient quality of life and the subsequent tailoring of care to address these individualised patient needs.
Authors: Kaisorn L Chaichana; Aditya N Halthore; Scott L Parker; Alessandro Olivi; Jon D Weingart; Henry Brem; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Patricia Thomson; Neil J Angus; Federico Andreis; Gordon F Rushworth; Andrea R Mohan; Misook L Chung; Stephen J Leslie Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Patricia Thomson; Gordon F Rushworth; Federico Andreis; Neil J Angus; Andrea R Mohan; Stephen J Leslie Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 2.298