TY - JOUR
T1 - A Comparison of Barrier Factors between Hospitals with and without Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Korea
T2 - A Nation-Wide Survey Research
AU - Kim, Chul
AU - Sung, Jidong
AU - Han, Jae Young
AU - Jee, Sungju
AU - Lee, Jang Woo
AU - Lee, Jong Hwa
AU - Kim, Won Seok
AU - Bang, Heui Je
AU - Baek, Sora
AU - Joa, Kyung Lim
AU - Kim, Ae Ryoung
AU - Lee, So Young
AU - Kim, Jihee
AU - Kim, Chung Reen
AU - Kwon, Oh Pum
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2022/5/1
Y1 - 2022/5/1
N2 - The percentage of patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) is very low (30–40%), and hospitals providing CRP are either insufficient or lacking, even in countries with advanced medical care; therefore, this study aims to investigate the barriers, as well as compare the differences between hospitals, with or without CRP. We conducted a survey, in which the question-naire was distributed through post or email to 607 specialists who work at 164 hospitals performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The results were as follows: (1) of the 164 hospitals, 132 responded (response rate: 80.5%). While all 47 hospitals with CRP responded (100%), from among the 117 hospitals without CRP, 85 responded (72.7%). (2) Of the 607 specialists, 227 responded (re-sponse rate: 36.9%). The response rates according to specialties were as follows: cardiologists (28.9%), cardiac surgeons (24.5%), and physiatrists (64.1%). (3) While the specialists at hospitals with CRP identified patient referral, transportation, and cost as the major barriers, for those at hospitals without CRP, all items were considered barriers, especially the items related to equipment, space, workforce, and budget as being more serious barriers. Therefore, in order to actively promote CRP, it is suggested that governments consider the customized support system according to the performance of CRPs.
AB - The percentage of patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) is very low (30–40%), and hospitals providing CRP are either insufficient or lacking, even in countries with advanced medical care; therefore, this study aims to investigate the barriers, as well as compare the differences between hospitals, with or without CRP. We conducted a survey, in which the question-naire was distributed through post or email to 607 specialists who work at 164 hospitals performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The results were as follows: (1) of the 164 hospitals, 132 responded (response rate: 80.5%). While all 47 hospitals with CRP responded (100%), from among the 117 hospitals without CRP, 85 responded (72.7%). (2) Of the 607 specialists, 227 responded (re-sponse rate: 36.9%). The response rates according to specialties were as follows: cardiologists (28.9%), cardiac surgeons (24.5%), and physiatrists (64.1%). (3) While the specialists at hospitals with CRP identified patient referral, transportation, and cost as the major barriers, for those at hospitals without CRP, all items were considered barriers, especially the items related to equipment, space, workforce, and budget as being more serious barriers. Therefore, in order to actively promote CRP, it is suggested that governments consider the customized support system according to the performance of CRPs.
KW - barriers
KW - cardiac rehabilitation
KW - percutaneous coronary interventions
KW - survey
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85129173421
U2 - 10.3390/jcm11092560
DO - 10.3390/jcm11092560
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85129173421
SN - 2077-0383
VL - 11
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
IS - 9
M1 - 2560
ER -