Effectiveness of alternative vs traditional exercises on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE

This review will evaluate the effectiveness of alternative vs traditional forms of exercise on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization and other outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs improve health outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. However, such programs are underutilized worldwide, particularly among women. Some women perceive traditional gym-based exercise in cardiac rehabilitation programs (eg, typically treadmills, cycle ergometers, traditional resistance training) to be excessively rigorous and unpleasant, resulting in diminished participation and completion. Alternative forms of exercise such as yoga, tai chi, qi gong, or Pilates may be more enjoyable and motivating exercise options for women, enhancing engagement in rehabilitation programs. However, the effectiveness of these alternative exercises in improving program utilization is still inconsistent and needs to be systematically evaluated and synthesized.

INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will focus on randomized controlled trials of studies measuring the effectiveness of alternative vs traditional forms of exercise on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization as well as clinical, physiological, or patient-reported outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and PsycINFO (Ovid) will be searched. Two independent reviewers will screen articles and then extract and synthesize data. Methodological quality will be assessed using JBI's standardized instruments. GRADE will be used to determine the certainty of evidence.

REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022354996.