Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease

Abstract

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...

What is rehabilitation? An empirical investigation leading to an evidence-based description

“…One review suggested education improved quality of life in people with cardiac disease. 61 However, self-management by a patient with a long-term disabling condition depends on education, and there is evidence to support teaching selfmanagement strategies for:…”

The Roots of Health Inequality and The Value of Intra-Family Expertise

“…The paper highlights that such education programs improve patient disease-specific knowledge and quality of life, and reduce respiratory-related hospital admissions and emergency department visits. Anderson et al (2017) focus on the educational component of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart diseases. The study reviews 22 randomized control trials that assigned patients to different educational interventions that ranged from face-to-face counseling to residential stays with follow-up sessions.…”

Implementation of interventions to reduce preventable hospital admissions for cardiovascular or respiratory conditions: an evidence map and realist synthesis

“…As mentioned previously, a key challenge relates to how to operationalise the concept of patient education. Within a research context, the Cochrane review definition 122 requires the presence of all four of the following elements: (1) instructional activities organised in a systematic way, (2) an inpatient, outpatient or community setting, (3) structured knowledge transfer about CHD for secondary prevention and (4) face to face (group or one to one) or interactive delivery.…”