Enrollment Barriers in Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation

Hybrid (i.e., combined center-based with home/community-based) cardiac rehabilitation (HYCR) programs using telehealth have gained interest to improve access to care. The purpose of this analysis is to describe reasons patients were either ineligible to participate or declined enrollment in a trial that involved HYCR. This is a sub-study of the improving ATTENDance to cardiac rehabilitation (iATTEND) trial, currently randomizing subjects to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) versus HYCR. This analysis used screening data from the first 23 months of this trial. Data from patients excluded or who declined enrollment was used to review enrollment barriers. Between March 2019 and January 2021, 3,708 patients were referred to cardiac rehabilitation. Of these, 887 (24%) attended a cardiac rehabilitation orientation at a site in the city of Detroit or at one of 2 suburban locations. Among these, 63% (554/887) were ineligible per study criteria, 3% (29/887) lacked access to a smart device, and 14% (128/887) lacked access to exercise equipment. Overall, 23% (205/887) of referred patients declined participation in the trial, and of these, 12% (103/887) declined because they preferred center-based cardiac rehabilitation over HYCR. Among the 157 patients unable to participate due to lack of a smart phone or exercise equipment, the percentage was not significantly different (P = 0.204) between those attending cardiac rehabilitation orientation within Detroit and the suburban locations. Lack of access to a smart device did not represent a meaningful barrier (3%) to participate in a trial involving HYCR. Access to exercise equipment represented a potential barrier (14%).

[1]  S. Keteyian,et al.  Evaluating the Feasibility of a Statewide Collaboration to Improve Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation , 2022, Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention.

[2]  Hilary K. Wall,et al.  Tracking Cardiac Rehabilitation Utilization in Medicare Beneficiaries , 2022, Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention.

[3]  S. Keteyian,et al.  A Review of the Design and Implementation of a Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: AN EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY FOR OPTIMIZING CARDIOVASCULAR CARE. , 2021, Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention.

[4]  P. Doherty,et al.  Virtual and in-person cardiac rehabilitation , 2021, BMJ.

[5]  Mitesh S. Patel,et al.  Referral Rates for Cardiac Rehabilitation Among Eligible Inpatients After Implementation of a Default Opt-Out Decision Pathway in the Electronic Medical Record , 2021, JAMA network open.

[6]  S. Keteyian,et al.  A Comparison of Exercise Intensity in Hybrid Versus Standard Phase Two Cardiac Rehabilitation , 2021, Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention.

[7]  C. Lavie,et al.  Current challenges in cardiac rehabilitation: strategies to overcome social factors and attendance barriers , 2020, Expert review of cardiovascular therapy.

[8]  Daniel E Forman,et al.  Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Scientific Statement From the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology. , 2019, Circulation.

[9]  Theresa M. Beckie,et al.  2018 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  Janet S. Wright,et al.  Increasing Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation From 20% to 70%: A Road Map From the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Collaborative , 2017, Mayo Clinic proceedings.