↓ Skip to main content

Effect of the patient education - Learning and Coping strategies - in cardiac rehabilitation on return to work at one year: a randomised controlled trial show (LC-REHAB)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
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
Effect of the patient education - Learning and Coping strategies - in cardiac rehabilitation on return to work at one year: a randomised controlled trial show (LC-REHAB)
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12872-018-0832-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Birgitte Laier Bitsch, Claus Vinther Nielsen, Christina Malmose Stapelfeldt, Vibeke Lynggaard

Abstract

Personal resources are identified as important for the ability to return to work (RTW) for patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) or heart failure (HF) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The patient education 'Learning and Coping' (LC) addresses personal resources through a pedagogical approach. This trial aimed to assess effect of adding LC strategies in CR compared to standard CR measured on RTW status at one-year follow-up after CR. In an open parallel randomised controlled trial, patients with IHD or HF were block-randomised in a 1:1 ratio to the LC arm (LC plus CR) or the control arm (CR alone) across three Danish hospital units. Eligible patients were aged 18 to ≤60 and had not left the labour market. The intervention was developed from an inductive pedagogical approach consisting of individual interviews and group based teaching by health professionals with experienced patients as co-educators. The control arm consisted of deductive teaching (standard CR). RTW status was derived from the Danish Register for Evaluation of Marginalisation (DREAM). Blinding was not possible. The effect was evaluated by logistic regression analysis and reported as crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The population for the present analysis was N = 244 (LC arm: n = 119 versus control arm: n = 125). No difference in RTW status was found at one year across arms (LC arm: 64.7% versus control arm: 68.8%, adjusted odds ratio OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.43-1.31). Addition of LC strategies in CR showed no improvement in RTW at one year follow-up. www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01668394. First Posted: August 20, 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 12 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 46 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 50 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,409,968
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#680
of 1,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,982
of 330,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#19
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 330,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.