RESEARCH PAPER
Assessment of awareness of post-hospital rehabilitation need in patients after acute coronary syndrome and after stroke
1
Department of Rehabilitation, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland
2
Department of Sports Medicine, University of Physical Education and Sport in Gdańsk, Poland
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2017;24(3):537-540
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stroke are the leading causes of mortality and long-term morbidity across the world. Post-hospital rehabilitation (PHR) is strongly recommended in both groups.
Objective:
The purpose was assessment of awareness of the PHR need in patients after ACS and after ischaemic stroke (IS).
Material and Methods:
The study included 60 patients (17 F, 43 M), 62 ± 13.6 years of age, admitted to hospital due to ACS (n=30 pts) or IS (n=30 pts). A cross-sectional survey was carried out in order to evaluate awareness of the PHR need through a questionnaire composed of 14 one-choice answer questions.
Results:
There was no significant correlation between place of residence and willingness to participate in the PHR programme: 69.2% (n=9) of the pts living in rural areas and 80.9% (n=38) living in the city declared their willingness to partcipate. The majority of patients declared that PHR is needed (87.5% of pts with basic educational level, 63.2% with vocational education, 61.1% with technical education, 80% with university education level). 43.3% (n=13) of pts after ACS and 66.7% (n=20) pts after IS declared they had been informed about the possibility of PHR. Altogether, 46.7% (n=14) of pts after ACS and 33.3% (n=10) after stroke understood it to be a stay in a spa; only 10% (n=3) of pts after ACS and 33.3% (n=10) after IS understood it correctly. 30% (n=9) pts after ACS and 13.3% (n=4) after IS saw it as a change in lifestyle and 13.3% (n=4) pts after ACS and 20% (n=6) after IS declared they did not know what PHR was.
Conclusions:
Type of place of residence and educational level had no association with the PHR need. Patients after IS were more aware than those after ACS. Increased independence was the main expectation in both groups. The majority of patients perceived PHR to consist of treatment in a spa. Too few patients were informed about the possibility of PHR.
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stroke are the leading causes of mortality and long-term morbidity across the world. Post-hospital rehabilitation (PHR) is strongly recommended in both groups.
Objective:
The purpose was assessment of awareness of the PHR need in patients after ACS and after ischaemic stroke (IS).
Material and Methods:
The study included 60 patients (17 F, 43 M), 62 ± 13.6 years of age, admitted to hospital due to ACS (n=30 pts) or IS (n=30 pts). A cross-sectional survey was carried out in order to evaluate awareness of the PHR need through a questionnaire composed of 14 one-choice answer questions.
Results:
There was no significant correlation between place of residence and willingness to participate in the PHR programme: 69.2% (n=9) of the pts living in rural areas and 80.9% (n=38) living in the city declared their willingness to partcipate. The majority of patients declared that PHR is needed (87.5% of pts with basic educational level, 63.2% with vocational education, 61.1% with technical education, 80% with university education level). 43.3% (n=13) of pts after ACS and 66.7% (n=20) pts after IS declared they had been informed about the possibility of PHR. Altogether, 46.7% (n=14) of pts after ACS and 33.3% (n=10) after stroke understood it to be a stay in a spa; only 10% (n=3) of pts after ACS and 33.3% (n=10) after IS understood it correctly. 30% (n=9) pts after ACS and 13.3% (n=4) after IS saw it as a change in lifestyle and 13.3% (n=4) pts after ACS and 20% (n=6) after IS declared they did not know what PHR was.
Conclusions:
Type of place of residence and educational level had no association with the PHR need. Patients after IS were more aware than those after ACS. Increased independence was the main expectation in both groups. The majority of patients perceived PHR to consist of treatment in a spa. Too few patients were informed about the possibility of PHR.
REFERENCES (21)
1.
Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors: 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006;367:1747–1757.
2.
Sidney C. Smith, Jr. Reducing the global burden of ischemic heart disease and stroke: a challenge for the cardiovascular community and the United Nations. Circulation 2011;124:278–279.
3.
Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med 2006;3:e442.
4.
Menzin J, Wygant G, Hauch O, Jackel J, Friedman M. One-year costs of ischemic heart disease among patients with acute coronary syndromes: findings from a multi-employer claims database. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24:461–468.
5.
European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Executive Committee: ESO Writing Committee. Cerebrovasc Dis 2008;25(5):457–507. doi: 10.1159/000131083. Epub 2008 May. Guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008.
6.
Smith SC Jr, Allen J., Blair SN et al. AHA/ACC guidelines for secondary prevention for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2006 update: endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circulation 2006;113: 2363–2372.
7.
Bassand JP, Hamm CW, Ardissino D et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2007;28: 1598–1660.
8.
Steg G, James SK, Atar D et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal 2012;33:2569–2619.
9.
Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med 2004;116:682–692.
10.
Graham I, Atar D, Borch-Johnsen K et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary. Eur Heart J 2007;28:2375–2414.
11.
Chew DP, Huynh LT, Liew D et al. Potential survival gains in the treatment of myocardial infarction. Heart 2009;95:1844–1850.
12.
Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB et al. Explaining the decrease in US deaths from coronary disease, 1980–2000. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2388–2398.
13.
Gąsiorowski A, Dutkiewicz J. Comprehensive rehabilitation in chronic heart failure. Ann Agric Environ Med 2013; 20(3):606–612.
14.
Jankowski P, Niewada M, Bochenek A et al. Optimal model of comprehensive rehabilitation and secondary prevention. Kardiol Pol 2013;71(9):995–1003.
15.
Lawler PR, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Efficacy of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation post-myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J 2011;162 (4):571–584 e572.
16.
Heran BS, Chen JM, Ebrahim S, Moxham T, Oldridge N, Rees K, Thompson DR, Taylor RS. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;7: CD001800.
17.
Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med 2004;116:682–693.
18.
Hacke W, Donnan G, Fieschi C et al. Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet 2004;363:768–774.
19.
WHO: International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health. Geneva, World Health Organisation, 2001.
20.
Jankowski P1, Czarnecka D, Lysek R, Skrzek A et al. Secondary prevention in patients after hospitalisation due to coronary artery disease: what has changed since 2006? Kardiol Pol. 2014;72(4):355–62.
21.
Giannuzzi P, Mezzani A, Saner H et al. Working Group on Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology. European Society of Cardiology. Physical activity for primary and secondary prevention. Position paper of the Working Group on Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1273–1278.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1898-2263 |
| ISSN: | 1232-1966 |
Improvement of visual identification of the journal - task financed under the agreement No. 618/P-DUN/2019 by the Minister of Science and Higher Education allocated to the activities of disseminating science.
Generation of the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) - task financed under the agreement No. 618/P-DUN/2019 by the Minister of Science and Higher
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
