BACKGROUND: While systematic referral strategies have been shown to significantly increase cardiac rehabilitation (CR) enrollment to approximately 70%, whether utilization rates increase among patient groups who are traditionally underrepresented has yet to be established. This study compared CR utilization based on age, marital status, rurality, socioeconomic indicators, clinical risk, and comorbidities following systematic versus nonsystematic CR referral. METHODS: Coronary artery disease inpatients (N = 2635) from 11 Ontario hospitals, utilizing either systematic (n = 8 wards) or nonsystematic referral strategies (n = 8 wards), completed a survey including sociodemographics and activity status. Clinical data were extracted from charts. At 1 year, 1680 participants completed a mailed survey that assessed CR utilization. The association of patient characteristics and referral strategy on CR utilization was tested using χ. RESULTS: When compared to nonsystematic referral, systematic strategies resulted in significantly greater CR referral and enrollment among obese (32 vs 27% referred, P = .044; 33 vs 26% enrolled, P = .047) patients of lower socioeconomic status (41 vs 34% referred, P = .026; 42 vs 32% enrolled, P = .005); and lower activity status (63 vs 54% referred, P = .005; 62 vs 51% enrolled, P = .002). There was significantly greater enrollment among those of lower education (P = .04) when systematically referred; however, no significant differences in degree of CR participation based on referral strategy. CONCLUSION: Up to 11% more socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with more risk factors utilized CR where systematic processes were in place. They participated in CR to the same high degree as their nonsystematically referred counterparts. These referral strategies should be implemented to promote equitable access.
BACKGROUND: While systematic referral strategies have been shown to significantly increase cardiac rehabilitation (CR) enrollment to approximately 70%, whether utilization rates increase among patient groups who are traditionally underrepresented has yet to be established. This study compared CR utilization based on age, marital status, rurality, socioeconomic indicators, clinical risk, and comorbidities following systematic versus nonsystematic CR referral. METHODS:Coronary artery disease inpatients (N = 2635) from 11 Ontario hospitals, utilizing either systematic (n = 8 wards) or nonsystematic referral strategies (n = 8 wards), completed a survey including sociodemographics and activity status. Clinical data were extracted from charts. At 1 year, 1680 participants completed a mailed survey that assessed CR utilization. The association of patient characteristics and referral strategy on CR utilization was tested using χ. RESULTS: When compared to nonsystematic referral, systematic strategies resulted in significantly greater CR referral and enrollment among obese (32 vs 27% referred, P = .044; 33 vs 26% enrolled, P = .047) patients of lower socioeconomic status (41 vs 34% referred, P = .026; 42 vs 32% enrolled, P = .005); and lower activity status (63 vs 54% referred, P = .005; 62 vs 51% enrolled, P = .002). There was significantly greater enrollment among those of lower education (P = .04) when systematically referred; however, no significant differences in degree of CR participation based on referral strategy. CONCLUSION: Up to 11% more socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with more risk factors utilized CR where systematic processes were in place. They participated in CR to the same high degree as their nonsystematically referred counterparts. These referral strategies should be implemented to promote equitable access.
Authors: Rod S Taylor; Allan Brown; Shah Ebrahim; Judith Jolliffe; Hussein Noorani; Karen Rees; Becky Skidmore; James A Stone; David R Thompson; Neil Oldridge Journal: Am J Med Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Andrew D Beswick; Karen Rees; Robert R West; Fiona C Taylor; Margaret Burke; Ingolf Griebsch; Rod S Taylor; Jackie Victory; Jacqueline Brown; Shah Ebrahim Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Jose A Suaya; Donald S Shepard; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Philip A Ades; Jeffrey Prottas; William B Stason Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Todd M Brown; Adrian F Hernandez; Vera Bittner; Christopher P Cannon; Gray Ellrodt; Li Liang; Eric D Peterson; Ileana L Piña; Monika M Safford; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rosemary O Higgins; Barbara M Murphy; Alan J Goble; Michael R Le Grande; Peter C Elliott; Marian U C Worcester Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2008-06-16 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Quinn R Pack; Aruna Priya; Tara Lagu; Penelope S Pekow; Robert Berry; Auras R Atreya; Philip A Ades; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Marta Supervía; Jose R Medina-Inojosa; Colin Yeung; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez; Ray W Squires; Carmen M Pérez-Terzic; LaPrincess C Brewer; Shawn E Leth; Randal J Thomas Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: David A Alter; Juda Habot; Sherry L Grace; Terry Fair; David Kiernan; Wendy Clark; David Fell Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Diann E Gaalema; Stephen T Higgins; Donald S Shepard; Jose A Suaya; Patrick D Savage; Philip A Ades Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Kerry A Spitzer; Mihaela S Stefan; Aruna Priya; Quinn R Pack; Penelope S Pekow; Tara Lagu; Kathy M Mazor; Victor M Pinto-Plata; Richard L ZuWallack; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: Chest Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 9.410