METHODS: This study was a two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight patients with coronary heart disease were randomly assigned to either the intervention group, receiving a 12-week technology-assisted intervention (n = 14), or the control group (n = 14), receiving usual care. Guided by the Health Belief Model, the intervention group received three center-based, supervised exercise training sessions, a fitness watch that served as a cue to action, six educational videos, and a weekly video call. The Self-efficacy for Exercise, exercise capacity, and Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II were assessed at baseline and immediately post-intervention (12-weeks).
RESULTS: Among the 28 patients who participated in this study, 85.7% completed the program, with a relatively low attrition rate (14.3%). The number of exercise training sessions accomplished by the participants in the intervention group was 51.27 ± 19.41 out of 60 sessions (85.5%) compared to 36.46 ± 23.05 (60.8%) in the control group. No cardiac adverse events or hospitalizations were reported throughout the study. Participants in the intervention group showed greater improvement in health-promoting behaviors when compared with the control group at 12 weeks. Within-group effects demonstrated improvement in exercise self-efficacy and exercise capacity among participants in the intervention group. A participant satisfaction survey conducted immediately post-intervention revealed that participants were "very satisfied" (23.1%) and "satisfied" (76.9%) with the technology-assisted intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrated that technology-assisted intervention in a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program was feasible and suggested to be beneficial in improving exercise self-efficacy, exercise capacity, and health promoting behavior among patients with coronary heart disease. A full-scale study is needed to determine its effectiveness in the long term.
TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04862351. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04862351.
BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to promote utilisation of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), participation among patients remains unsatisfactory. Little is known of patient decision to participate Phase II CR in a multi-ethnic country.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design.
METHODS: A consecutive sampling of 240 patients with coronary heart disease completed Coronary Artery Disease Education Questionnaire (CADE-Q) II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) and Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS).
RESULTS: Seventy per cent of patients (mean age 60.5 [SD = 10.6] years, 80.8% male) participated in phase II cardiac rehabilitation. Self-driving to cardiac rehabilitation centres, higher barriers in perceived need/health care and logistical factors were significantly associated with decreased odds of participation. Patients with more barriers from comorbidities/functional status, higher perceived social support from friends, and anxiety were more likely to participate. Chinese and Indians were less likely to participate when compared with Malays. More than 80% of patients used both home and mobile broadband internet, and 72.9% of them would accept the usage of technologies, especially educational videos, instant messenger, and video calls to partially replace the face-to-face, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation approach.
CONCLUSION: Several barriers were associated with non-participation in phase II cardiac rehabilitation. With the high perceived acceptance of technology usage in cardiac rehabilitation, home-based and hybrid cardiac rehabilitation may represent potential solutions to improve participation.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: By addressing the barriers to cardiac rehabilitation, patients are more likely to be ready to adopt health behaviour changes and adhere to the cardiac rehabilitation programme. The high perceived acceptance of using technologies in cardiac rehabilitation may provide insights into new delivery models that can improve and overcome barriers to participation.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]).
CONCLUSIONS: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.
METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 with staff at HE institutions across 16 countries. Job insecurity was measured using the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS), burnout using the Perceived Burnout measure question, psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), and coping using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Multivariable logistic regression with a stepwise variable selection method was used to identify associations.
RESULTS: A total of 2,353 staff participated; the mean age (± SD) was 43(± 10) years and 61% were females. Most staff (85%) did not feel job insecurity, one-third (29%) perceived burnout in their jobs, more than two-thirds (73%) experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress, and more than half (58%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping. Perceived job insecurity was associated with staff working part-time [Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.53 (95% Confidence Intervals 1.15-2.02)], having an academic appointment [2.45 (1.78-3.27)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.86 (1.41-2.48)], perceived burnout [1.99 (1.54-2.56)] and moderate to very high level of psychological distress [1.68 (1.18-2.39)]. Perceived burnout was associated with being female [1.35 (1.12-1.63)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.53 (1.20-1.97)], perceived job insecurity [1.99 (1.55-2.57)], and moderate to very high levels of psychological distress [3.23 (2.42-4.30)]. Staff with multiple co-morbidities [1.46 (1.11-1.92)], mental health issues [2.73 (1.79-4.15)], perceived job insecurity [1.61 (1.13-2.30)], and perceived burnout [3.22 (2.41-4.31)] were associated with moderate to very high levels of psychological distress. Staff who perceived their mental health as good to excellent [3.36 (2.69-4.19)] were more likely to have medium to high resilient coping.
CONCLUSIONS: Factors identified in this study should be considered in reviewing and updating current support strategies for staff at HE institutions across all countries to reduce stress and burnout and improve wellbeing.