Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease is among the leading causes of mortality and disability worldwide. Each year ischemic heart disease gives rise to an estimated 8,92 million deaths globally[1] and the estimated one-year mortality in people living with heart failure is 20-30%.[2] People living with ischemic heart disease and heart failure are likely to experience diminished quality of life, readmissions, and debilitating symptoms.[3,4] Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is evidenced to reduce mortality, reduce the risk of readmission, improve quality of life[5,6] and it can reduce anxiety and depression; conditions found to worsen the prognosis for survival after cardiac events.[7] As such since the beginning of the millennium participation CR has been acknowledged as a crucial therapeutic tool.[8] However, despite significant improvement in prognoses and personal benefits from participating in CR, many patients do not enrol.[9]

The treatment of ischemic heart disease and heart failure has been significantly improved over the last decades and aims to limit disease progression, prevent or reduce complications, and to eliminate ischemic symptoms. The primary treatment is medical therapy, device therapy, and surgical revascularization, whereas CR is becoming an integral part of standard secondary treatment targeting risk modification to promote recovery and prevent further cardiac events.[10,11] CR programs include education, counselling, and behavioral strategies to improve health behavior in relation to nutrition, smoking, stress, and training, and is offered to assist patients with heart disease to move forward and live healthy and satisfying lives.[12] Participating in CR helps patients find a new foothold in life.[13] Attendees feel supported by being with peers during the course of the rehabilitation program and from the knowledge and encouragement they receive from the CR staff. [14] However, though the benefits from participation in CR are manifest, less than half of patients participate[15–17] and there is a need to consider strategies to encourage more patients to enrol.

Barriers for participation in CR seem to be multiple and complex and appear across factors such as age, social position, and culture. Particularly women, people older than 70 years, younger people, smokers, people with more comorbidity, people with reduced functioning, people living alone, unemployed people, and people who have a lower income are more likely to abstain from participation.[18] Contextual factors such as distance, transportation difficulties, family commitment and opinions of significant others are reported to be barriers for enrolling in CR.[19]. Though systematized referral is found to be a key to secure that patients enrol in CR,[18] many patients abstain from participation even when systematized referral is implemented in hospital practices.[9] The combination of systematized referral and discussions between the individual patient and a healthcare professional, the so called ‵liaison’ strategies, have been found more effective than systematized referral on its own, and the incorporation of these interventions into standard, in-hospital pathways has been recommended.[20] Particularly liaison strategies involving at least some elements of face-to-face contact and when delivered by healthcare professionals have proven to promote enrolment.[21]

Studies on face-to-face interventions are limited[21] and the strategies used to influence enrolment vary, e.g. the provision of education and advice about CR,[22] social support,[23,24] the targeting of patients’ intention to enrol,[25] their illness perception,[26] self-efficacy,[23] and beliefs about CR,[27,28] or the focusing on individual barriers for enrolment. [25] Some studies proven to be effective in increasing enrolment rates use psychologically based behavioral theories to guide the development of the intervention i.e., Banduras theory of self-efficacy,[23] Leventhal’s self-regulation theory,[26] and theory of planned behavior.[25] However, interventions targeting patients’ behavior, intentions to attend, and health belief may fail to convey how CR can be connected with their everyday life.[29] The experience of health in a person’s life goes beyond the modification of risks and intentions to live a life without disease,[30] and when patients make decisions regarding their participation in CR, existential thoughts concerning their own well-being and suffering can be essential.[31] Hence, it seems pivotal that development of interventions take into account a person’s life-world and contemplate both patients’ agency and vulnerability.[32]

For the patients participation may conflict with their emotions, beliefs or sense of identity[29] and thoughts about one’s own mortality, and a wish to get back to normal and avoid worries have proven to be a barrier for participation in CR. Additional barriers are documented to be patients’ experiences of the nature and suitability of the program; accessibility; negative experiences of the healthcare professionals providing the services; and the view that CR is beneficial for others than one self, e.g. those who are more fit or more ill.[14] Though these barriers perceived by patients are acknowledged to influence their decision to enrol,[14] they rarely are targeted,[33] and a person-oriented approach where patients’ experiences and knowledge are taken into account is called for when barriers for enrolment are addressed.[34]

In-hospital face-to-face strategies to encourage participation in CR and bridge the gap between referral and enrolment are emerging. However, not much is known about the current scope of face-to-face interventions developed to facilitate enrolment in CR, their characteristics and content, how they are structured in a hospital context, and whether they are effective. A preliminary search of PUBMED, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the JBI Evidence Synthesis identified a systematic review updated in 2019 on interventions to promote utilization of CR. However, the study only included randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase utilization and only briefly considered the characteristics of the studies.{Santiago de Araujo Pio, 2019 #1328} No current or underway scoping reviews or systematic reviews on the topic of this scoping review were identified.

There is a need to gather the knowledge and experience from existing intervention studies to improve and develop interventions including how to support a person-oriented approach. The mapping and evaluation of evidence on face-to-face interventions encouraging patients to enrol in CR will provide an overview and a greater understanding of the use and characteristics of existing interventions and/or identify gaps of importance for future research. Also, an understanding of the outcomes evaluated in the current literature will aid clinicians in understanding the applicability of face-to-face interventions. With this scoping review we aim to map and evaluate the nature and characteristics as well as the outcomes evaluated of studies that have reported on face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in CR.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews[35] and will be reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews.{Tricco, 2018 #1422} We follow the JBI reviewer’s manual to secure a contemporary methodological framework promoting clarity and rigor of the review process and to facilitate knowledge transfer to research and practice. The steps outlined in the JBI reviewer’s manual to be used are: (1) identifying the research question; (2) developing the inclusion criteria; (3) defining the search strategy; (3) study selection; (4) data extraction; and (5) presentation of the results.

ETHICS AND DISSSEMINATION

Since the scoping review methodology aims at synthetizing information from publicly available publications, this study does not require ethical approval. In terms of dissemination activities, an article reporting the results of the scoping review will be submitted for publication to a scientific journal and presented at relevant conferences. We expect the results of the scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence base of face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in CR and to highlight areas where evidence is missing. The results may be of interest for health professionals interested in planning and delivering evidence based and effective interventions to encourage participation in CR. For this reason, the results will be also disseminated as part of future workshops with professionals involved in communicating with patients about CR.

Authors’ Contributions

BRA drafted the protocol and was the main writer of the manuscript and responsible for the initial design of this study. BST and SJH contributed to the conceptualization of the review design, specifically in establishing the inclusion and exclusion criteria. BRA executed the draft search strategy. BST contributed to developing the extraction criteria, provided feedback on the background section, and revised the manuscript for content and clarity. All authors read, edited, and approved the final manuscript prior to submission.

Competing interests statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or non-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.