BACKGROUND: Globally, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended as soon as possible after admission from an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularisation. However, uptake is consistently poor internationally, ranging from 10% to 60%. The low level of uptake is compounded by variation across different socioeconomic groups. Policy recommendations continue to focus on increasing uptake and addressing inequalities in participation; however, to date, there is a paucity of economic evidence evaluating higher CR participation rates and their relevance to socioeconomic inequality. METHODS: This study constructed a de-novo cost-effectiveness model of CR, utilising the results from the latest Cochrane review and national CR audit data. We explore the role of socioeconomic status by incorporating key deprivation parameters and determine the population health gains associated with achieving an uptake target of 65%. RESULTS: We find that the low cost of CR and the potential for reductions in subsequent MI and revascularisation rates combine to make it a highly cost-effective intervention. While CR is less cost-effective for more deprived groups, the lower level of uptake in these groups makes the potential health gains, from achieving the target, greater. Using England as a model, we estimate the expenditure that could be justified while maintaining the cost-effectiveness of CR at £68.4 m per year. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing CR uptake is cost-effective and can also be implemented to reduce known socioeconomic inequalities. Using an estimation of potential population health gains and justifiable expenditure, we have produced tools with which policymakers and commissioners can encourage greater utilisation of CR services.
BACKGROUND: Globally, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended as soon as possible after admission from an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularisation. However, uptake is consistently poor internationally, ranging from 10% to 60%. The low level of uptake is compounded by variation across different socioeconomic groups. Policy recommendations continue to focus on increasing uptake and addressing inequalities in participation; however, to date, there is a paucity of economic evidence evaluating higher CR participation rates and their relevance to socioeconomic inequality. METHODS: This study constructed a de-novo cost-effectiveness model of CR, utilising the results from the latest Cochrane review and national CR audit data. We explore the role of socioeconomic status by incorporating key deprivation parameters and determine the population health gains associated with achieving an uptake target of 65%. RESULTS: We find that the low cost of CR and the potential for reductions in subsequent MI and revascularisation rates combine to make it a highly cost-effective intervention. While CR is less cost-effective for more deprived groups, the lower level of uptake in these groups makes the potential health gains, from achieving the target, greater. Using England as a model, we estimate the expenditure that could be justified while maintaining the cost-effectiveness of CR at £68.4 m per year. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing CR uptake is cost-effective and can also be implemented to reduce known socioeconomic inequalities. Using an estimation of potential population health gains and justifiable expenditure, we have produced tools with which policymakers and commissioners can encourage greater utilisation of CR services.
Authors: Heidi S Melbostad; Patrick D Savage; Katharine Mahoney; Diann E Gaalema; Philip A Ades; Donald S Shepard Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.646
Authors: Joel Ohm; Per H Skoglund; Henrike Häbel; Johan Sundström; Kristina Hambraeus; Tomas Jernberg; Per Svensson Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01
Authors: Eduardo M Vilela; Ricardo Ladeiras-Lopes; Ana Joao; Joana Braga; Susana Torres; Sofia Viamonte; José Ribeiro; Madalena Teixeira; José P Nunes; Ricardo Fontes-Carvalho Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2021-12-26
Authors: Benjamin Sasko; Philipp Jaehn; Rhea Müller; Henrike Andresen; Stephan Müters; Christine Holmberg; Oliver Ritter; Nikolaos Pagonas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Luke P Dawson; Emily Andrew; Ziad Nehme; Jason Bloom; Sinjini Biswas; Shelley Cox; David Anderson; Michael Stephenson; Jeffrey Lefkovits; Andrew J Taylor; David Kaye; Karen Smith; Dion Stub Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 6.106