Evidence-informed development of women-focused cardiac rehabilitation education.

BACKGROUND: Despite their differential risk factor burden, context and often different forms of heart disease, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs generally do not provide women with needed secondary prevention information specific to them. OBJECTIVE: to co-design evidence-informed, theory-based comprehensive women-focused education, building from Health e-University's Cardiac College for CR. METHODS: A multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder steering committee (N = 18) oversaw the four-phase development of the women-focused curriculum. Phase 1 involved a literature review on women's CR information needs and preferences, phase 2 a CR program needs assessment, phase 3 content development (including determining content and mode, assigning experts to create the content, plain language review and translation), and phase 4 will comprise evaluation and implementation. In phase 2, a focus group was conducted with Canadian CR providers; it was analyzed using Braun and Clarke's iterative approach. RESULTS: Nineteen providers participated in the focus group, with four themes emerging: current status of education, challenges to delivering women-focused education, delivery modes and topical resources. Results were consistent with those from our related global survey, supporting saturation of themes. Co-designed educational materials included 19 videos. These were organized across 5 webpages in English and French, specific to tests and treatments, exercise, diet, psychosocial well-being, and self-management. Twelve corresponding session slide decks with notes for clinicians were created, to support program delivery in CR flexibly. CONCLUSION: While further evaluation is underway, these open-access CR education resources will be disseminated for implementation, to support women in reducing their risk of cardiovascular sequelae.

Profile of women choosing mixed-sex, women-only, and home-based cardiac rehabilitation models and impact on utilization.

This study compared characteristics and program utilization in women electing to participate in mixed-sex, women-only, or home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR). In this retrospective cohort study, electronic records of CR participants in Toronto who were offered the choice of program model between January 2017-February 2020 were analyzed. There were 727 women (74.7% mixed, 22.0% women-only, 3.3% home-based) who initiated CR. There were significantly more women who were not working in women-only than mixed-sex (80.4% vs 64.1%; P = .009). Session adherence was significantly greater with mixed-sex (58.8 ± 28.9% sessions attended/25) than women-only (54.3 ± 26.3% sessions attended/25; P = .046); program completion was significantly lower with home-based (33.3%) than either supervised model (59.7%; P = .035). Participation in women-only CR may be less accessible. Further research is needed to investigate offering remote women-focused sessions or peer support.

Women's outcomes following mixed-sex, women-only, and home-based cardiac rehabilitation participation and comparison by sex.

BACKGROUND: Despite women's greater need for cardiac rehabilitation (CR), they are less likely to utilize it. Innovative CR models have been developed to better meet women's needs, yet there is little controlled, comparative data assessing the effects of these models for women. This study compared outcomes in women electing to participate in mixed-sex, women-only, or home-based CR, and a matched sample of men. METHODS: In this retrospective study, electronic records of CR participants in Toronto who were offered the choice of program model between January 2017 and July 2019 were analyzed; clinical outcomes comprised cardiorespiratory fitness, risk factors and psychosocial well-being. These were assessed at intake and post-6-month program and analyzed using general linear mixed models. RESULTS: There were 1181 patients (727 women [74.7% mixed, 22.0% women-only, 3.3% home-based]; 454 age and diagnosis-matched men) who initiated CR; Cardiorespiratory fitness among women was higher at initiation of mixed-sex than women-only (METs 5.1 ± 1.5 vs 4.6 ± 1.3; P = .007), but no other outcome differences were observed. 428 (58.9%) women completed the programs, with few women retained in the home-based model limiting comparisons. There were significant improvements in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P = .001) and quality of life (P = .001), and lower depressive symptoms (P = .030) as well as waist circumference (P = .001) with mixed-sex only. VO2peak was significantly higher at discharge in mixed-sex than women-only (estimate = 1.67, standard error = 0.63, 95% confidence interval = 0.43-2.91). CONCLUSION: Participation in non-gender-tailored women-only CR was not advantageous as expected. More research is needed, particularly including women participating in home-based programs.