A wide variety of secondary prevention programs improve health outcomes in patients with coronary disease.
Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of death worldwide. Cardiac rehabilitation, an evidencebased CHD secondary prevention programme, remains underutilized. Telehealth may offer an innovative solution to overcome barriers to cardiac rehabilitation attendance. We aimed to determine whether contemporary telehealth interventions can provide effective secondary prevention as an alternative or adjunct care compared with cardiac rehabilitation and/or usual care for patients with CHD. Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials evaluating telehealth interventions in CHD patients with at least three months' follow-up compared with cardiac rehabilitation and/or usual care were identified by searching electronic databases. We checked reference lists, relevant conference lists, grey literature and keyword searching of the Internet. Main outcomes included all-cause mortality, rehospitalization/cardiac events and modifiable risk factors. (PROSPERO registration number 77507.) Results: In total, 32 papers reporting 30 unique trials were identified. Telehealth was not significant associated with a lower all-cause mortality than cardiac rehabilitation and/or usual care (risk ratio (RR)=0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.86 to 1.24, p=0.42). Telehealth was significantly associated with lower rehospitalization or cardiac events (RR=0.56, 95% CI=0.39 to 0.81, p<0.0001) compared with non-intervention groups. There was a significantly lower weighted mean difference (WMD) at medium to long-term follow-up than comparison groups for total cholesterol (WMD= −0.26 mmol/l, 95% CI= −0.4 to −0.11, p <0.001), low-density lipoprotein (WMD= −0.28, 95% CI = −0.50 to −0.05, p=0.02) and smoking status (RR=0.77, 95% CI =0.59 to 0.99, p=0.04]. Conclusions: Telehealth interventions with a range of delivery modes could be offered to patients who cannot attend cardiac rehabilitation, or as an adjunct to cardiac rehabilitation for effective secondary prevention.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion criteria. One author extracted study characteristics from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. Two independent reviewers extracted outcome data onto a standardised collection form. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. Heterogeneity amongst included studies was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. Where appropriate and possible, results from included studies were combined for each outcome to give an overall estimate of treatment e ect. Given the degree of clinical heterogeneity seen in participant selection, interventions and comparators across studies, we decided it was appropriate to pool studies using random-e ects modelling. We planned to undertake subgroup analysis and stratified meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression to examine potential treatment e ect modifiers. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to create summary of findings tables. Main results This updated review included a total of 22 trials which randomised 76,864 people with CHD to an education intervention or a 'no education' comparator. Nine new trials (8215 people) were included for this update. We judged most included studies as low risk of bias across most domains. Educational 'dose' ranged from one 40 minute face-to-face session plus a 15 minute follow-up call, to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups received usual medical care, typically consisting of referral to an outpatient cardiologist, primary care physician, or both. We found no di erence in e ect of education-based interventions on total mortality (13 studies, 10,075 participants; 189/5187 (3.6%) versus 222/4888 (4.6%); random e ects risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.05; moderate quality evidence). Individual causes of mortality were reported rarely, and we were unable to report separate results for cardiovascular mortality or non-cardiovascular mortality. There was no evidence of a di erence in e ect of education-based interventions on fatal and/or non fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (2 studies, 209 participants; 7/107 (6.5%) versus 12/102 (11.8%); random e ects RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; very low quality of evidence). However, there was some evidence of a reduction with education in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events (2 studies, 310 studies; 21/152 (13.8%) versus 61/158 (38.6%); random e ects RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a di erence in e ect of education on the rate of total revascularisations (3 studies, 456 participants; 5/228 (2.2%) versus 8/228 (3.5%); random e ects RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71; very low quality evide...
Critiques of logical positivism form the foundation for a significant number of nursing research papers, with the philosophy being inappropriately deemed synonymous with empirical method. Frequently, proposing an alternative method to those identified with the quantitative paradigm, these critiques are based on a poor foundation. This paper highlights an alternative philosophy to positivism which can also underpin empirical inquiry, that of post-positivism. Post-positivism is contrasted with positivism, which is presented as an outmoded and rejected philosophy which should cease to significantly shape inquiry. Though some acknowledgement of post-positivism has occurred in the nursing literature, this has yet to permeate into mainstream nursing research. Many still base their arguments on a positivistic view of science. Through achievement of a better understanding of post-positivism and greater focus on explicating the philosophical assumptions underpinning all research methods, the distinctions that have long been perceived to exist between qualitative and quantitative methodologies can be confined to the past. Rather methods will be selected solely on the nature of research questions.
PurposeTo produce a meta-study by completing a systematic review of qualitative research examining determinants of independent active free play in children.MethodFollowing systematic electronic and manual searches and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 46 studies were retained and subjected to meta-method, meta-theory, and meta-data analyses, followed by a final meta-synthesis.ResultsIdentified determinants of independent active free play were child characteristics (age, competence, and gender), parental restrictions (safety concerns and surveillance), neighborhood and physical environment (fewer children to play with, differences in preferences for play spaces between parents and children, accessibility and proximity, and maintenance), societal changes (reduced sense of community, good parenting ideal, changing roles of parents, privatization of playtime and play spaces), and policy issues (need to give children voice). An ecological model depicting these factors, and the relationships therein, was created.ConclusionsThis comprehensive meta-study helps establish a knowledge base for children’s independent active free play research by synthesizing a previously fragmented set of studies. Parents’ perceived safety concerns are the primary barrier to children’s active free play. These safety concerns are moderated by child-level factors (age, competence, gender) and broader social issues. Interventions should focus on community-level solutions that include children’s perspectives. From a methods perspective, the reviewed studies used a range of data collection techniques, but methodological details were often inadequately reported. The theoretical sophistication of research in this area could be improved. To this end, the synthesis reported in this study provides a framework for guiding future research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0165-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.