ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine exercise self-efficacy improvements during cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and identify predictors of exercise self-efficacy change in CR participants. METHODS: Patients with coronary heart disease at four metropolitan CR sites completed the Exercise Self-efficacy Scale at entry and completion. A general linear model identified independent predictors of change in exercise self-efficacy. RESULTS: The mean age of patients (n = 194) was 65.9 ± 10.5 yr, and 81% were males. The majority (80%) were married or partnered, 76% were White, and 24% were from an ethnic minority background. Patients received CR in-person (n = 91, 47%) or remote-delivered (n = 103, 54%). Exercise self-efficacy mean scores improved significantly from 25.2 ± 5.8 at CR entry to 26.2 ± 6.3 points at completion ( P = .025). The majority of patients (59%) improved their self-efficacy scores, 34% worsened, and 7% had no change. Predictors of reduced exercise self-efficacy change were being from an ethnic minority (B =-2.96), not having a spouse/partner (B =-2.42), attending in-person CR (B =1.75), and having higher exercise self-efficacy at entry (B =-0.37) (adjusted R2 = 0.247). CONCLUSIONS: Confidence for self-directed exercise improves in most, but not all, patients during CR. Those at risk for poor improvement (ethnic minorities, single patients) may need extra or tailored support, and screening for exercise self-efficacy at CR entry and completion is recommended. Differences identified from CR delivery mode need exploration using robust methods to account for complex factors.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Rehabilitation , Male , Humans , Female , Cardiac Rehabilitation/methods , Self Efficacy , Ethnicity , Minority Groups , Exercise , Exercise TherapyABSTRACT
AIMS: 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. METHODS AND RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.