| Title |
Systematic review of the use of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) in home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes for patients with cardiovascular disease—protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0149-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil Heron, Frank Kee, Michael Donnelly, Mark A. Tully, Margaret E. Cupples |
| Abstract |
Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), including myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and strokes, are highly prevalent conditions and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an effective form of secondary prevention for CVD but there is a lack of information regarding which specific behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are included in programmes that are associated with improvements in cardiovascular risk factors. This systematic review will describe the BCTs which are utilised within home-based CR programmes that are effective at reducing a spectrum of CVD risk factors. The review will be reported in line with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of home-based CR initiated following a vascular event (myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and stroke patients) will be included. Articles will be identified through a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Cochrane Database guided by a medical librarian. Two review authors will independently screen articles retrieved from the search for eligibility and extract relevant data, identifying which specific BCTs are included in programmes that are associated with improvements in particular modifiable vascular risk factors. This review will be of value to clinicians and healthcare professionals working with cardiovascular patients by identifying specific BCTs which are used within effective home-based CR. It will also inform the future design and evaluation of complex health service interventions aimed at secondary prevention in CVD. PROSPERO registration CRD42015027036 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 15% |
| Psychology | 12 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,468,369
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,784
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,563
of 386,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#62
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.