Cardiac rehabilitation delivery in low/middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) availability, programme characteristics and barriers are not well-known in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, they were compared with high-income countries (HICs) and by CR funding source. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to CR programmes globally. Need for CR was computed using incident ischaemic heart disease (IHD) estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study. General linear mixed models were performed. RESULTS: CR was identified in 55/138 (39.9%) LMICs; 47/55 (85.5% country response rate) countries participated and 335 (53.5% programme response) surveys were initiated. There was one CR spot for every 66 IHD patients in LMICs (vs 3.4 in HICs). CR was most often paid by patients in LMICs (n=212, 65.0%) versus government in HICs (n=444, 60.2%; p<0.001). Over 85% of programmes accepted guideline-indicated patients. Cardiologists (n=266, 89.3%), nurses (n=234, 79.6%; vs 544, 91.7% in HICs, p=0.001) and physiotherapists (n=233, 78.7%) were the most common providers on CR teams (mean=5.8±2.8/programme). Programmes offered 7.3±1.8/10 core components (vs 7.9±1.7 in HICs, p<0.01) over 33.7±30.7 sessions (significantly greater in publicly funded programmes; p<0.001). Publicly funded programmes were more likely to have social workers and psychologists on staff, and to offer tobacco cessation and psychosocial counselling. CONCLUSION: CR is only available in 40% of LMICs, but where offered is fairly consistent with guidelines. Governments should enact policies to reimburse CR so patients do not pay out-of-pocket.

Cardiac rehabilitation availability and delivery in Europe: How does it differ by region and compare with other high-income countries?: Endorsed by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to establish cardiac rehabilitation availability and density, as well as the nature of programmes, and to compare these by European region (geoscheme) and with other high-income countries. METHODS: A survey was administered to cardiac rehabilitation programmes globally. Cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate programme identification. Density was computed using global burden of disease study ischaemic heart disease incidence estimates. Four high-income countries were selected for comparison (N = 790 programmes) to European data, and multilevel analyses were performed. RESULTS: Cardiac rehabilitation was available in 40/44 (90.9%) European countries. Data were collected in 37 (94.8% country response rate). A total of 455/1538 (29.6% response rate) programme respondents initiated the survey. Programme volumes (median 300) were greatest in western European countries, but overall were higher than in other high-income countries (P < 0.001). Across all Europe, there was on average only 1 CR spot per 7 IHD patients, with an unmet regional need of 3,449,460 spots annually. Most programmes were funded by social security (n = 25, 59.5%; with significant regional variation, P < 0.001), but in 72 (16.0%) patients paid some or all of the programme costs (or ∼18.5% of the ∼€150.0/programme) out of pocket. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in 70% or more of programmes (lower for stable coronary disease), with no regional variation. Programmes had a multidisciplinary team of 6.5 ± 3.0 staff (number and type varied regionally; and European programmes had more staff than other high-income countries), offering 8.5 ± 1.5/10 core components (consistent with other high-income countries) over 24.8 ± 26.0 hours (regional differences, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: European cardiac rehabilitation capacity must be augmented. Where available, services were consistent with guidelines, but varied regionally.

Funding sources and costs to deliver cardiac rehabilitation around the globe: Drivers and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) reach is minimal globally, primarily due to financial factors. This study characterized CR funding sources, cost to patients to participate, cost to programs to serve patients, and the drivers of these costs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Costs in each country were reported using purchasing power parity (PPP). Results were compared by World Bank country income classification using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: 111/203 (54.68%) countries in the world offer CR, of which data were collected in 93 (83.78% country response rate; N = 1082 surveys, 32.0% program response rate). CR was most-often publicly funded (more in high-income countries [HICs]; p < .001), but in 60.20% of countries patients paid some or all of the cost. Funding source impacted capacity (p = .004), number of patients per exercise session (p < .001), personnel (p = .037), and functional capacity testing (p = .039). The median cost to serve 1 patient was $945.91PPP globally. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), exercise equipment and stress testing were perceived as the most expensive delivery elements, with front-line personnel costs perceived as costlier in HICs (p = .003). Modifiable factors associated with higher costs included CR team composition (p = .001), stress testing (p = .002) and telemetry monitoring in HICs (p = .01), and not offering alternative models in LMICs (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Too many patients are paying out-of-pocket for CR, and more public funding is needed. Lower-cost delivery approaches are imperative, and include walk tests, task-shifting, and intensity monitoring via perceived exertion.

Cardiac Rehabilitation Availability and Delivery in Canada: How Does It Compare With Other High-Income Countries?

BACKGROUND: Canada has insufficient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) capacity, yet unmet need is unknown. Moreover, Canada has CR guidelines, but whether delivery conforms has not been characterized by province/territory. This study aimed to establish (1) CR volumes, capacity, and density, as well as (2) the nature of programs, and (3) compare these (a) by province/territory and (b) with other high-income countries (HICs). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was administered to CR programs globally. National cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate program identification where available, or local champions. Density was computed using Canada's Chronic Disease Surveillance System ischemic heart disease incidence estimates. Twenty-eight HICs with CR were selected for comparison (N = 619 programs), and multilevel analyses performed. RESULTS: CR was available in 10 of 13 (76.9%) provinces (no programs in Canada's North), with 74 of 182 programs initiating a survey (40.7% response). Program volumes (median = 250) were greatest in Ontario, but ultimately there was only 1 CR spot per 4.55 patients with ischemic heart disease nationally (similar in other HICs), and 186,187 more spots are needed annually. Most programs were funded by government/hospital sources (n = 48, 66.7%), but in 23 (31.5%), patients paid some or all of program costs out-of-pocket. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in more than 90% of programs. Programs had a multidisciplinary team of 6.2 ± 2.1 staff, offering 7.7 ± 1.5/10 core components (varied by province, P = 0.001; return-to-work offered less frequently than other HICs; P = 0.03), over 42.0 ± 26.0 hours (provincial and other HIC differences, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian CR capacity must be augmented, but where available, services are consistent with other HICs.

A Review of Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery Around the World.

Herein, 28 publications describing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery in 50 of the 113 countries globally suspected to deliver it are reviewed, to characterize the nature of services. Government funding was the main source of CR reimbursement in most countries (73%), with private and patient funding in about » of cases. Myocardial infarction patients and those having revascularization were commonly served. The main professions delivering CR were physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists. Programs offered a median of 20 sessions, although this varied. Most programs offered the core components of exercise training, patient education and nutrition counselling. Alternative models were not commonly offered. Lack of human and/or financial resources as well as space constraints were reported as the major barriers to delivery. Overall, CR delivery has been characterized in less than half of the countries where it is offered. The nature of services delivered is fairly consistent with major CR guidelines and statements.