Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2025
Distinguishing Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Models and Comparing Their Effectiveness: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tanguay Pamela, Marquis Nicole, Faivre Pierre, Registe Pierre Philippe Wilson, Boucher Sara-Maude, Laevski Katarina, Leblanc Jacob, Bélanger Mathieu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Unlike center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR), hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (HCR) combines both center-based and home-based training sessions. However, there are various types of HCR, and it remains unclear which type is most effective. This study aimed to classify HCR models and compare their effectiveness relative to CBCR.
REVIEW METHODS: We extracted original studies on HCR effectiveness from 3 databases: Medline, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. Inclusion criteria required that the HCR model incorporate a mix of exercise sessions in both a center setting and at home and at least 1 additional core component of cardiac rehabilitation (i.e., education, multidisciplinary care, psychosocial support, or medical risk management). Data on functional capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), level of physical activity (PA), anxiety, depression, adherence, satisfaction, and long-term effects were extracted.
SUMMARY: Twenty-six studies were identified, and HCR were classified into 3 types: (1) sequential programs (initial CBCR followed by home-based cardiac rehabilitation only); (2) progressive programs (gradual shift from center-based to home-based); (3) simultaneous programs (CBCR with concurrent home-based sessions). All 3 HCR models achieved results comparable to those of CBCR in terms of functional capacity, HRQoL, anxiety, and depression. Participants reported high levels of adherence and satisfaction with HCR programs. However, the effectiveness of HCR programs on PA levels and long-term effects remains inconclusive. The three HCR models provide similar outcomes to CBCR and thus appear to be promising alternatives to CBCR.
REVIEW METHODS: We extracted original studies on HCR effectiveness from 3 databases: Medline, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. Inclusion criteria required that the HCR model incorporate a mix of exercise sessions in both a center setting and at home and at least 1 additional core component of cardiac rehabilitation (i.e., education, multidisciplinary care, psychosocial support, or medical risk management). Data on functional capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), level of physical activity (PA), anxiety, depression, adherence, satisfaction, and long-term effects were extracted.
SUMMARY: Twenty-six studies were identified, and HCR were classified into 3 types: (1) sequential programs (initial CBCR followed by home-based cardiac rehabilitation only); (2) progressive programs (gradual shift from center-based to home-based); (3) simultaneous programs (CBCR with concurrent home-based sessions). All 3 HCR models achieved results comparable to those of CBCR in terms of functional capacity, HRQoL, anxiety, and depression. Participants reported high levels of adherence and satisfaction with HCR programs. However, the effectiveness of HCR programs on PA levels and long-term effects remains inconclusive. The three HCR models provide similar outcomes to CBCR and thus appear to be promising alternatives to CBCR.