↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to Participation in and Adherence to Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs: A Critical Literature Review

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing, June 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
4 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
362 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to Participation in and Adherence to Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs: A Critical Literature Review
Published in
Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing, June 2007
DOI 10.1111/j.0889-7204.2002.00614.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Daly, Andrew P. Sindone, David R. Thompson, Karen Hancock, Esther Chang, Patricia Davidson

Abstract

Despite the documented evidence of the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in enhancing recovery and reducing mortality following a myocardial infarction, only about one third of patients participate in such programs. Adherence to these programs is an even bigger problem, with only about one third maintaining attendance in these programs after 6 months. This review summarizes research that has investigated barriers to participation and adherence to CR programs. Some consistent factors found to be associated with participation in CR programs include lack of referral by physicians, associated illness, specific cardiac diagnoses, reimbursement, self-efficacy, perceived benefits of CR, distance and transportation, self-concept, self-motivation, family composition, social support, self-esteem, and occupation. Factors associated with non-adherence include being older, female gender, having fewer years of formal education, perceiving the benefits of CR, having angina, and being less physically active during leisure time. However, many of the studies have methodologic flaws, with very few controlled, randomized studies, making the findings tentative. Problems in objectively measuring adherence to unstructured, non-hospital-based programs, which are an increasingly popular alternative to traditional programs, are discussed. Suggestions for reducing barriers to participation and adherence to CR programs, as well as for future research aimed at clearly identifying these barriers, are discussed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 256 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 13%
Researcher 26 10%
Other 14 5%
Other 52 20%
Unknown 47 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 17%
Psychology 35 13%
Sports and Recreations 18 7%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 60 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 September 2009.
All research outputs
#2,471,982
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing
#5
of 35 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,493
of 69,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one scored the same or higher as 30 of them.
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 69,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.