Building Capacity Through ICCPR Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Foundations Certification (CRFC): EVALUATION OF REACH, BARRIERS, AND IMPACT.

PURPOSE: The International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (ICCPR) developed an online Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Foundations Certification (CRFC; https://globalcardiacrehab.com/Certification) in October 2017, to build cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery capacity in low-resource settings based on their guidelines. Herein we evaluate its reach globally, barriers to its completion, as well as satisfaction and impact of the course among those completing it. METHODS: The country of origin of all applicants was tallied. An online survey was developed for learners who completed the CRFC (completers), and for those who applied but did not yet complete the program (noncompleters), administered using Google Forms. RESULTS: With regard to reach, 236 applications were received from 23/203 (11%) countries in the world; 51 (22%) were from low- or middle-income countries. A total of 130 (55%) have completed the CRFC; mean scores on the final examination were 88.3 ± 7.1%, with no difference by country income classification (P= .052). Sixteen (22%) noncompleters and 37 (34%) completers responded to the survey. Barriers reported by noncompleters were time constraints, cost, and technical issues. Overall satisfaction (scale 1-5) with the CRFC was high (4.49 ± 0.51); most completers would highly recommend the CRFC to others (4.30 ± 0.66), and perceived that the information provided will contribute to their work and/or the care of their patients (4.38 ± 0.89); 29 (78%) had used the information from the CRFC in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: The reach of the CRFC still needs to be broadened, in particular in low-resource settings. Learners are highly satisfied with the certification, and its impacts on CR practice are encouraging. Input has been implemented to improve the CRFC.

Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery Model for Low-Resource Settings: An International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Consensus Statement.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a global epidemic, which is largely preventable. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is demonstrated to be efficacious and cost-effective for secondary prevention in high-income countries. Given its affordability, CR should be more broadly implemented in middle-income countries as well. Hence, the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (ICCPR) convened a writing panel to recommend strategies to deliver all core CR components in low-resource settings, namely: (1) initial assessment, (2) lifestyle risk factor management (i.e., diet, tobacco, mental health), (3) medical risk factor management (lipids, blood pressure), (4) education for self-management; (5) return to work; and (6) outcome evaluation. Approaches to delivering these components in alternative, arguably lower-cost settings, such as the home, community and primary care, are provided. Recommendations on delivering each of these components where the most-responsible CR provider is a non-physician, such as an allied healthcare professional or community health care worker, are also provided.

Cardiac rehabilitation delivery model for low-resource settings.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular disease is a global epidemic, which is largely preventable. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is demonstrated to be cost-effective and efficacious in high-income countries. CR could represent an important approach to mitigate the epidemic of cardiovascular disease in lower-resource settings. The purpose of this consensus statement was to review low-cost approaches to delivering the core components of CR, to propose a testable model of CR which could feasibly be delivered in middle-income countries. METHODS: A literature review regarding delivery of each core CR component, namely: (1) lifestyle risk factor management (ie, physical activity, diet, tobacco and mental health), (2) medical risk factor management (eg, lipid control, blood pressure control), (3) education for self-management and (4) return to work, in low-resource settings was undertaken. Recommendations were developed based on identified articles, using a modified GRADE approach where evidence in a low-resource setting was available, or consensus where evidence was not. RESULTS: Available data on cost of CR delivery in low-resource settings suggests it is not feasible to deliver CR in low-resource settings as is delivered in high-resource ones. Strategies which can be implemented to deliver all of the core CR components in low-resource settings were summarised in practice recommendations, and approaches to patient assessment proffered. It is suggested that CR be adapted by delivery by non-physician healthcare workers, in non-clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: Advocacy to achieve political commitment for broad delivery of adapted CR services in low-resource settings is needed.