Analysis of Barriers to Public and Private Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Patients with Low and High Adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Participants in cardiac rehabilitation programs have low adherence to their sessions, which makes extremely important to recognize the barriers that cause non-adherence, identifying whether the type of service and level of adherence influence these barriers. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional observational study, in which 220 individuals (66.80±11.59 years) of both genders who are members of public and private exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs participated. The volunteers were divided according to the level of adherence, considering patients with low adherence (PLA) those with < 70% of attendance and high adherence (PHA) those with > 70%. Then, initial evaluation, Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale, analysis of socioeconomic level, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Mini-Mental State Examination were applied. RESULTS: Higher total barriers were found in PLA in the public service compared to PHA in the private service (P=0.023). In the subscale "perceived need", PHA in the public service showed higher values than PLA and PHA in the private service (P≤0.001). The "access" barrier was higher for PHA in the public service when compared to PHA in the private service (P=0.024). PHA in the public service exhibited a higher barrier regarding questions about distance, transportation problems, cost, and time constraints. CONCLUSION: The public program presents higher barriers in the questions and categories compared to the private program, mainly the PHA. Furthermore, there are differences in the profile of the participants regarding socioeconomic and anxiety levels, treatment time, ethnicity, and city where they live.

Analysis of Barriers to Public and Private Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Patients with Low and High Adherence

ABSTRACT Introduction: Participants in cardiac rehabilitation programs have low adherence to their sessions, which makes extremely important to recognize the barriers that cause non-adherence, identifying whether the type of service and level of adherence influence these barriers. Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study, in which 220 individuals (66.80±11.59 years) of both genders who are members of public and private exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs participated. The volunteers were divided according to the level of adherence, considering patients with low adherence (PLA) those with < 70% of attendance and high adherence (PHA) those with > 70%. Then, initial evaluation, Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale, analysis of socioeconomic level, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Mini-Mental State Examination were applied. Results: Higher total barriers were found in PLA in the public service compared to PHA in the private service (P=0.023). In the subscale "perceived need", PHA in the public service showed higher values than PLA and PHA in the private service (P≤0.001). The "access" barrier was higher for PHA in the public service when compared to PHA in the private service (P=0.024). PHA in the public service exhibited a higher barrier regarding questions about distance, transportation problems, cost, and time constraints. Conclusion: The public program presents higher barriers in the questions and categories compared to the private program, mainly the PHA. Furthermore, there are differences in the profile of the participants regarding socioeconomic and anxiety levels, treatment time, ethnicity, and city where they live.

Perceptions and preferences of patients with cardiac conditions to the inclusion of virtual reality-based therapy with conventional cardiovascular rehabilitation: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality-based therapy (VRBT) has been recently used in rehabilitation programs, as it can improve patient's adherence to treatment. However, patients' acceptance of VRBT has been scarcely investigated. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively analyze the perceptions and preferences of patients about the inclusion of VRBT to a conventional cardiovascular rehabilitation program (CRP). METHODS: Fifteen patients from a randomized clinical trial participated in focus groups for qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Patients demonstrated good acceptance and satisfaction of VRBT. Physical and psychosocial benefits were highlighted, and patients reported the perception of higher exercise intensity in VRBT then when doing conventional training. In addition, the frequency of VRBT (once a week), associated with conventional treatment was reported as satisfactory. Cognitive aspects that influenced participation to the new approach were also raised by study participants. CONCLUSION: Patients with cardiac conditions demonstrated satisfaction with the inclusion of VRBT in a conventional CRP, demonstrating that VRBT has the potential to be a new approach for this patient population, allowing training diversification. Benefits perceived by patients include physical, mental, and social aspects. TRIAL REGISTERED: NCT04336306 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04336306).