| Literature DB >> 35663291 |
Gustavo Arrieta-Bartolomé1, Marta Supervia1,2, Alessandra Bertha Castillo Velasquez1, Antonia Delgado-Montero3, Irene Méndez3, Mª Ángeles Ortega Orduñez4, Olga Arroyo-Riaño1, Crystal Aultman5, Paul Oh5, Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi5.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive educational intervention in a hybrid model of cardiac rehabilitation in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac rehabilitation; Health behaviour; Health knowledge, attitudes, practice; Patient education as topic/methods; Pilot projects; Process assessment, healthcare/methods
Year: 2022 PMID: 35663291 PMCID: PMC9150916 DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PEC Innov ISSN: 2772-6282
Fig. 1Flow diagram
Participants’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics overall and by main component of hybrid CR model (n=82)
| Overall (n=82) | Main component of hybrid CR model | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean±SD / n (%) | Mostly onsite sessions (n=42) | Mostly home-based sessions (n=40) | ||
| Sociodemographic characteristics | ||||
| Age | 57.2 ± 11.6 | 54.1 ± 12.2 | 60.4 ± 10.1 | 0.01 |
| Sex (% male) | 68 (83%) | 37 (54%) | 31 (46%) | 0.47 |
| Ethnicity (% European) | 75 (92%) | 37 (49%) | 38 (51%) | 0.90 |
| Education (% ≤ elementary school) | 32 (39%) | 18 (56%) | 14 (44%) | 0.48 |
| Work status (% retired) | 27 (33%) | 11 (41%) | 16 (59%) | 0.34 |
| Marital status (% married) | 52 (64%) | 25 (48%) | 27 (51%) | 0.78 |
| Clinical Characteristics | ||||
| Coronary artery disease | 64 (78%) | 28 (44%) | 14 (56%) | 0.32 |
| Percutaneous coronary intervention | 56 (68%) | 23 (41%) | 33 (59%) | 0.18 |
| Smoking (% current) | 53 (65%) | 33 (62%) | 20 (38%) | 0.07 |
| Dyslipidemia | 42 (51%) | 20 (48%) | 22 (52%) | 0.76 |
| Obesity | 40 (49%) | 20 (50%) | 20 (50%) | 1.00 |
| Hypertension | 39 (48%) | 19 (49%) | 23 (51%) | 0.87 |
| Angina | 21 (26%) | 12 (57%) | 9 (43%) | 0.51 |
| Diabetes type 2 | 16 (20%) | 10 (63%) | 6 (37%) | 0.32 |
| Heart failure | 14 (17%) | 10 (59%) | 4 (41%) | 0.11 |
| Cardiomyopathy | 11 (13%) | 10 (90%) | 1 (10%) | 0.007 |
| Family history of myocardial infarction | 10 (12%) | 8 (80%) | 2 (20%) | 0.06 |
| Alcohol consumption (% high) | 10 (12%) | 4 (40%) | 6 (60%) | 0.53 |
| Arrhythmia | 10 (12%) | 7 (70%) | 3 (30%) | 0.21 |
| Metabolic Syndrome | 8 (10%) | 5 (63%) | 3 (27%) | 0.48 |
| Sleep apnea | 8 (10%) | 3 (27%) | 5 (63%) | 0.48 |
| Coronary artery bypass graft surgery | 7 (9%) | 5 (70%) | 2 (3%) | 0.26 |
| Depression | 5 (6%) | 4 (80%) | 1 (20%) | 0.18 |
| Fibrillation | 4 (5%) | 3 (75%) | 1 (3%) | 0.32 |
| Valve disease | 3 (4%) | 2 (60%) | 1 (40%) | 0.56 |
Percentages in the different types of hybrid CR models are related to the number of participants identified by characteristic.
CR, cardiac rehabilitation; SD, standard deviation.
Difference between participants who attended different types of hybrid CR models.
Disease-related knowledge, health literacy, physical activity, adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and exercise self-efficacy pre- and post-CR (n = 81)
| Outcome measures | Possible score range | Pre-CR | Post-CR | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease-related knowledge | |||||
| CADE-Q SV total scores (mean±SD) | 0–20 | 15.1 ± 2.8 | 17.6 ± 2.1 | +2.5 | <0.001 |
| Subscale: medical condition (mean±SD) | 0–4 | 3.1 ± 1.1 | 3.5 ± 0.8 | +0.4 | <0.001 |
| Subscale: risk factors (mean±SD) | 0–4 | 3.6 ± 0.7 | 3.8 ± 0.5 | +0.2 | 0.03 |
| Subscale: exercise (mean±SD) | 0–4 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 3.4 ± 0.7 | +0.6 | <0.001 |
| Subscale: diet (mean±SD) | 0–4 | 3.2 ± 1.0 | 3.6 ± 0.4 | +0.4 | 0.002 |
| Subscale: physiological risk (mean±SD) | 0–4 | 2.3 ± 1.0 | 3.1 ± 0.9 | +0.8 | <0.001 |
| Health literacy | |||||
| BRIEF total scores (mean±SD) | 4–20 | 14.8 ± 2.4 | 15.2 ± 3.0 | +0.4 | 0.16 |
| Adequate health literacy, n (%) | 17–20 | 20 (25%) | 28 (35%) | +11% | - |
| METER total scores (mean±SD) | 0–40 | 35.9 ± 5.2 | 35.5 ± 5.6 | -0.4 | 0.46 |
| Functional health literacy, n (%) | 35–40 | 64 (79%) | 62 (76%) | -3% | - |
| NVS total scores (mean±SD) | 0–6 | 4.2 ± 2.0 | 4.3 ± 2.0 | +0.1 | 0.18 |
| Adequate health literacy, n (%) | 4–6 | 53 (65%) | 56 (69%) | +4% | - |
| High health literacy skills, n (%) | - | 10 (13%) | 25 (30%) | +17% | - |
| Physical activity | |||||
| Steps taken per day (mean±SD) | - | 9,991.2 ± 4,358.6 | 12,452.4 ± 4,594.6 | +2461.2 | <0.001 |
| Participants who reached ≥ 7,500 per day, n (%) | - | 61 (74%) | 70 (85%) | +11% | - |
| Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet | |||||
| MDS total scores (mean±SD) | 0–13 | 9.8 ± 1.7 | 10.8 ± 1.7 | +1.0 | 0.005 |
| Low adherence, n (%) | 0–5 | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) | -1% | - |
| High adherence, n (%) | 6–13 | 48 (59%) | 56 (68%) | +9% | - |
| Exercise self-efficacy | |||||
| Bandura’s SE scale (mean±SD) | 0–5 | 3.33 ± 0.85 | 3.51 ± 0.73 | +0.18 | 0.02 |
CADE-Q SV, Coronary Artery Disease Education Questionnaire Short Version; CR, cardiac rehabilitation; MDS, Mediterranean Diet Score; METER, Medical Term Recognition Test; NVS, Newest Vital Sign; SD, standard deviation; SE self-efficacy.
Simple and multiple regression analysis for disease-related knowledge total scores at post-CR
| Simple regression | Multiple regression | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | β | SE | p | 95% CI Lower Bound | 95% CI Upper Bound | β | SE | p | 95% CI Lower Bound | 95% CI Upper Bound |
| Age | –0.034 | 0.028 | 0.84 | –0.064 | 0.053 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Sex | –0.012 | 0.684 | 0.95 | –1.503 | 1.411 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Education level | 0.510 | 0.429 | 0.002 | 0.672 | 2.499 | 0.430 | 0.429 | 0.001 | 0.546 | 2.310 |
| Work status | 0.021 | 0.152 | 0.90 | -0.304 | 0.343 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Type of hybrid CR model | 0.015 | 0.429 | 0.91 | -0.872 | 0.967 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Pre-CR knowledge | 0.536 | 0.085 | 0.002 | 0.129 | 0.493 | 0.510 | 0.081 | 0.002 | 0.118 | 0.488 |
| High health literacy skills | 0.522 | 0.438 | 0.01 | –0.362 | 1.506 | 0.489 | 0.390 | 0.01 | –0.322 | 1.306 |
SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; CR, cardiac rehabilitation.
More sessions onsite vs. more sessions at home.
Fig. 2Satisfaction with educational materials