ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) barriers are well-understood in high-resource settings. However, they are under-studied in low-resource settings, where access is even poorer and the context is significantly different, including two-tiered healthcare systems and greater socioeconomic challenges. OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in characteristics of patients attending publicly versus privately funded CR and their barriers to adherence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational, cross-sectional study in public and private CR programs offered in Brazil. METHODS: Patients who had been attending CR for ≥ 3 months were recruited from one publicly and one privately funded CR program. They completed assessments regarding sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the CR Barriers Scale. RESULTS: From the public program, 74 patients were recruited, and from the private, 100. Participants in the public program had significantly lower educational attainment (P < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic status (P < 0.001). Participants in the private program had more cognitive impairment (P = 0.015), and in the public program more anxiety (P = 0.001) and depressive symptoms (P = 0.008) than their counterparts. Total barriers among public CR participants were significantly higher than those among private CR participants (1.34 ± 0.26 versus 1.23 ± 0.15/5]; P = 0.003), as were scores on 3 out of 5 subscales, namely: comorbidities/functional status (P = 0.027), perceived need (P < 0.001) and access (P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Publicly funded programs need to be tailored to meet their patients' requirements, through consideration of educational and psychosocial matters, and be amenable to mitigation of patient barriers relating to presence of comorbidities and poorer health status.