Remote-delivered cardiac rehabilitation during COVID-19: a prospective cohort comparison of health-related quality of life outcomes and patient experiences

Enforced suspension and reduction of in-person cardiac rehabilitation (CR) services during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions required rapid implementation of remote delivery methods, thus enabling a cohort comparison of in-person vs. remote-delivered CR participants. This s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of cardiovascular nursing : journal of the Working Group on Cardiovascular Nursing of the European Society of Cardiology 2022-10, Vol.21 (7), p.732-740
Main Authors: Candelaria, Dion, Kirkness, Ann, Farrell, Maura, Roach, Kellie, Gooley, Louise, Fletcher, Ashlee, Ashcroft, Sarah, Glinatsis, Helen, Bruntsch, Christine, Roberts, Jayne, Randall, Sue, Gullick, Janice, Ladak, Laila Akbar, Soady, Keith, Gallagher, Robyn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Original
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Enforced suspension and reduction of in-person cardiac rehabilitation (CR) services during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions required rapid implementation of remote delivery methods, thus enabling a cohort comparison of in-person vs. remote-delivered CR participants. This study aimed to examine the health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes and patient experiences comparing these delivery modes. Participants across four metropolitan CR sites receiving in-person (December 2019 to March 2020) or remote-delivered (April to October 2020) programmes were assessed for HRQL (Short Form-12) at CR entry and completion. A General Linear Model was used to adjust for baseline group differences and qualitative interviews to explore patient experiences. Participants (n = 194) had a mean age of 65.94 (SD 10.45) years, 80.9% males. Diagnoses included elective percutaneous coronary intervention (40.2%), myocardial infarction (33.5%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (26.3%). Remote-delivered CR wait times were shorter than in-person [median 14 (interquartile range, IQR 10-21) vs. 25 (IQR 16-38) days, P < 0.001], but participation by ethnic minorities was lower (13.6% vs. 35.2%, P < 0.001). Remote-delivered CR participants had equivalent benefits to in-person in all HRQL domains but more improvements than in-person in Mental Health, both domain [mean difference (MD) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28, 5.82] and composite (MD 2.37, 95% CI 0.15, 4.58). From qualitative interviews (n = 16), patients valued in-person CR for direct exercise supervision and group interactions, and remote-delivered for convenience and flexibility (negotiable contact times). Remote-delivered CR implemented during COVID-19 had equivalent, sometimes better, HRQL outcomes than in-person, and shorter wait times. Participation by minority groups in remote-delivered modes are lower. Further research is needed to evaluate other patient outcomes.
ISSN:1474-5151
1873-1953
DOI:10.1093/eurjcn/zvac006