Objective:The purpose of this study was to investigate the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS).Design, setting, and participants:In total, 2636 cardiac inpatients from 11 hospitals completed a survey. One year later, participants completed a follow-up survey, which included the CRBS. A subsample of patients also completed a third survey which included the CRBS, the Cardiac Rehabilitation Enrolment Obstacles scale, and the Beliefs About Cardiac Rehabilitation scale three weeks later. The CRBS asked participants to rate 21 cardiac rehabilitation barriers on a five-point Likert scale regardless of cardiac rehabilitation referral or enrolment.Results:Maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblique rotation resulted in a four-factor solution: perceived need/healthcare factors (eigenvalue = 6.13, Cronbach’s α = .89), logistical factors (eigenvalue = 5.83, Cronbach’s α = .88), work/time conflicts (eigenvalue = 3.78, Cronbach’s α = .71), and comorbidities/functional status (eigenvalue = 4.85, Cronbach’s α = .83). Mean total perceived barriers were significantly greater among non-enrollees than cardiac rehabilitation enrollees (P < .001). Convergent validity with the Beliefs About Cardiac Rehabilitation and Cardiac Rehabilitation Enrolment Obstacles scales was also demonstrated. Test-retest reliability of the CRBS was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient = .64).Conclusion:The CRBS consists of four subscales and has sound psychometric properties. The extent to which identified barriers can be addressed to facilitate greater cardiac rehabilitation utilization warrants future study.

IntroductionDespite greater need, rural inhabitants and individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) are less likely to undertake cardiac rehabilitation (CR). This study examined barriers to enrollment and participation in CR among these under-represented groups.MethodCardiac inpatients from 11 hospitals across Ontario were approached to participate in a larger study. Rurality was assessed by asking participants whether they lived within a 30-minute drive-time from the nearest hospital, with those >30 minutes considered “rural.” Participants completed a sociodemographic survey, which included the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. One year later, they were mailed a survey which assessed CR utilization and included the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale. In this cross-sectional study, CR utilization and barriers were compared by rurality and SES.ResultsOf the 1809 (80.4%) retained, there were 215 (11.9%) rural participants, and the mean subjective SES was 6.37 ± 1.76. The mean CRBS score was 2.03 ± 0.73. Rural inhabitants reported attending significantly fewer CR sessions (p < .05), and greater CR barriers overall compared to urban inhabitants (p < .01). Patients of lower subjective SES were significantly less likely to be referred, enroll, and participate in CR, and reported significantly greater barriers to CR compared to their high SES counterparts (p < .01). Prominent barriers for both groups included distance, cost, and transportation problems. These relationships sustained adjustment, and a significant relationship between having undergone coronary artery bypass graft surgery and lower barriers was also identified.ConclusionsThe results confirm that rural inhabitants and patients of low SES experience greater barriers to CR utilization when compared to their urban, high SES counterparts. It is time to implement known strategies to overcome these barriers, to achieve equitable and greater use of CR.

Given that the benefits of CR are achieved in older patients as well as the young, interventions to overcome these modifiable barriers to enrollment and participation are needed.