Introduction
Coronary heart disease (CHD) has increasingly become a leading cause of morbidity and premature death worldwide [
1]. China, as a middle-income country, has an estimated 11 million patients with CHD, which accounts for the largest proportion of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) nationwide [
2]. The mortality of CHD was 126.9/100000 in urban areas and 135.88/100000 in rural areas in China in 2020 [
2]. The incidence of CHD has been continuously increasing and will continue to increase in the next decade [
2].
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a comprehensive continuum of care for patients with CHD after initial treatment. Normal, the CR was divided into three phases. Phase 1 starts in the hospital which focusing on recover basic functional mobility. Phase 2 begins when patients discharge from hospital which involves structured and closely monitored exercises and activities. It is often lasted for at least 3–6 months after discharge. Phase 3 focus on keeping up exercises and maintain a healthy life style [
3]. The benefits of CR are clear, including improving cardio-pulmonary function, promoting wellness, and improving quality of life [
4,
5]. In addition, CR was proven to reduce cerebrovascular events, hospital readmission rates, and mortality rates [
6].
Regardless of the well-described benefits of CR, CR utilization remains low around the world. Worldwide, CR overall referral rates were 43%, enrollment was 42%, and adherence was maintained for 70% of prescribed sessions [
7]. In America, the data from the US Catheterization/PCI Registry of 1310 hospitals between 2009 and 2012 revealed that 59.2% of patients were referred to CR [
8]. The USA most recently reports 24% of patients actually enrolled. After enrollment, 57% of these patients adhered to ≥25 CR sessions, and 27% completed the full 36 prescribed sessions [
9]. 36–54% of primary PCI patients attended CR in Australia [
10]. In Europe, self-reported CR utilization at up to 131 hospitals in 27 countries revealed 46% of patients were referred, with 69% of those reporting they attended at least half of prescribed sessions [
11]. In China, although hospitals with CR centers have increased significantly in the past 5 years, the participation rate remains quite low, with approximately 5% enrollment [
12,
13].
It is challenging to increase CR utilization. Effective intervention can only be proposed after adequate investigation of the barriers. CR barriers occur at multiple levels, including physicians, patients, and systems [
14]. In low- and middle-income countries, the most commonly reported barrier was the lack of physician referral. Patient-related factors were affordability, particularly due to lack of insurance coverage, transportation difficulties, primarily driven by long distances to CR centers, an unwillingness to attend CR, and competing priorities on patients’ time. The most frequently reported systems factor was the lack of personnel and resources. In addition, self-efficacy, self-motivation, self-esteem, personality, depression, anxiety and social support were reported to be barriers to CR [
15].
Some research has focused on ethnic minorities or women. Language was reported as the main barrier in treating ethnic minorities [
16]. The language barrier was associated with a lack of understanding of verbal and written instructions, a lack of certified translators to facilitate communication between ethnic minority groups and the CR team, a lack of interaction with the CR team and a lack of communication about feelings and disease-related information. Age and comorbidities, a history of depression, transportation problems, family obligations, a lack of CR insurance, financial concerns, and a lack of social support from family and friends were the most common barriers identified by women [
17]. Some qualitative studies indicated that key barriers were background knowledge, in-the-moment understanding, personal responsibility, social connectedness and perceived benefits [
18].
China is still in the preliminary stage of developing CR. According to a recent global survey of CR programs, 216 hospital-based CR programs are available in China [
19]. However, only a few studies have investigated the barriers to CR access. One qualitative study conducted in Nanjing reported that the main barrier was affordability [
12]. Another quantitative study conducted in 11 hospitals in Shanghai identified that distance, lack of awareness, weather and transportation were the main barriers [
13]. Affordability was not identified as a barrier, which conflicts with the finding of the qualitative study conducted in Nanjing. Another quantitative study aimed at cultural adaptation of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS) in one hospital in Beijing, China, but the author did not report any data about the scores acquired [
20].
The previous three studies in China were conducted in Beijing, Nanjing and Shanghai, which are culturally different from the city of Shantou. Shantou is the largest city in the Chaoshan region, with a population of 5.64 million. The regional dialect is Chaoshan, which is considered one of the most difficult Chinese dialects to learn and is reportedly spoken by more than 70% of the population in the Chaoshan region. A recent cross-sectional study in Shantou reported that linguistic barriers significantly impact health care delivery with perceived adverse impacts on the ability of the entire health care system to operate effectively [
21].
In addition, a recent global cross-sectional study completed by 1062 CR programs in 70 countries indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted CR programs worldwide, including the cessation of services, a decrease in CR components delivered, a change in treatment mode delivery without much opportunity for planning and training, and psychosocial and economic impacts on health care providers [
22]. Another study reported that, in the current pandemic era, an extra 7.3 million employees, including their families, have become unemployed [
23]. The restrictions of the pandemic and the influence of restrictions on the economy might add new barriers to CR programs. Government restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have varied widely across different countries, and even in different areas of the same country. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the barriers to CR during the pandemic.
There are few studies focusing on CR barriers in China, and the number of CR programs is increasing, so barriers to access should be assessed in China. In addition, China is a large country with diverse cultures, which might be potential barriers to CR delivery. Moreover, the restrictions of the pandemic and the influence of restrictions on the economy and mental health might have added some new barriers to CR programs. Last, previous studies have been solely quantitative or qualitative. No previous research has explored CR barriers by using mixed -methods design in China.
Therefore, this study investigated the barriers to hospital-based phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation among patients with CHD in Chaoshan, China, during the COVID-19 pandemic by using mixed methods. It will provide a better and deeper understanding of barriers in the current Chaoshan region in China during the pandemic and provide evidence for the design of future intervention programs.
Results
Quantitative findings
A total of 160 participants completed the survey. Among the 160 patients, 126 (78.7%) patients participated in phase 1 CR, which is a relatively higher rate; however, only 39 patients were assigned to participate in phase 2 CR, and ultimately, only 9 patients completed the prescribed CR program. Fifty-three (33.1%) patients were living in the city or town, while the other 69% of patients were living in rural areas, suburban areas or other cities. Other sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the participants are shown in Table
1.
Table 1
Characteristic of participants
Sociodemographic |
Age in years, n (%) |
45 or younger | 19(11.9) |
46–60 | 52(32.5) |
61–80 | 85(53.1) |
80 or older | 4(2.5) |
Gender, n (%) |
Male | 126(78.8) |
Female | 34(21.3) |
Marital status (%married) | 148(92.5) |
Nationality (% Han) | 159(99.4) |
Residence (% city or town) | 53(33.1) |
Education, n (%) |
Junior high school and below | 82(51.2) |
Technical secondary school/senior high school | 69(43.1) |
College degree | 9(5.6) |
Work status (% working) | 67(41.9) |
Monthly income, n (%) |
<3000RMB | 78(48.8) |
3000-8000RMB | 74(46.3) |
>8000RMB | 8(5.0) |
Healthcare insurance coverage, n (%) |
Government or insurance | 129(80.6) |
Out-of-pocket | 31(19.4) |
Clinical characteristics |
CABG (% yes) | 1(0.6) |
PCI (% yes) | 112(70) |
Heart failure (% yes) | 16(10) |
Hypertension (% yes) | 86(53.8) |
valvular heart disease (% yes) | 5(3.1) |
Diabetes (% yes) | 42(26.3) |
hyperlipidemia (% yes) | 66(41.3) |
Tobacco use(% yes) | 94(58.8) |
Family history of CVD (% yes) | 10(6.3) |
Regular exercise (% ≥3 times/wk. for ≥30 min) (% yes) | 38(23.8) |
BMI | 26.17 ± 19.069 |
Participant in the phase 1 CR (%) | 126(78.7) |
The distance from the CR facility was rated as the most significant barrier to enrollment (3.29 ± 1.565), followed by transportation problems (2.99 ± 1.503) and CR costs (2.76 ± 1.425). Other significant barriers (average value approximately 2/5) included “I already exercise at home, or in my community” (2.69 ± 1.509), time constraints (2.48 ± 1.496) and work responsibilities (2.43 ± 1.666) (Table
4).
Qualitative results
A total of 17 participants completed the interview. Their sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table
2. Six themes were identified after analyzing the content of the transcriptions, namely, logistic factors, social support, misunderstanding of CR, program and health system-level factors, impression of health care providers and hospital surroundings and psychological distress (Table
3).
Table 2
Sociodemographic of interview participants
Age in years, n (%) |
45–60 | 9(52.9%) |
61–80 | 8(47.1%) |
Gender, n (%) |
male | 10(58.8%) |
Female | 7(41.2%) |
Marital status (%married) | 11(64.7%) |
Nationality (% Han) | 17(100%) |
Residence (% city or town) | 8(45.5%) |
Education, n (%) |
Junior high school and below | 8(47.1%) |
Technical secondary school/senior high school | 9(52.9%) |
Work status |
Working n(%) | 8(47.1%) |
Retired or have no work n(%) | 9(52.9%) |
Monthly income, n (%) |
<3000RMB | 7(41.2%) |
Over 3000RMB | 10(58.8%) |
Healthcare insurance coverage, n (%) |
Government or insurance | 5(29.4%) |
Out-of-pocket | 12(70.6%) |
Regular exercise (% ≥3 times/wk. for ≥30 min) (% yes) | 7(41.2%) |
Undergone PCI (Yes) | 9(52.9%) |
Participant in the phase 1 rehabilitation (Yes) | 12(70.6%) |
Table 3
Themes and categories of the findings
Logistical Factors | Distance |
Inconvenient traffic |
Insufficient economic support |
Parking difficulty |
Social support | Lack of family support |
Caregiver role conflict |
Work Conflict |
Misunderstanding of CR | Believing that daily activities can replace CR |
Doubt the effectiveness of CR |
Program and health system-level factors | Limited CR centers and inflexible time |
Covid-19 test |
Psychological distress and personality | Pessimism |
Anger and Hostility |
Escaping |
Impression on cardiac team | Believe doctors rather than nurses |
Theme 1: logistical factors
P4: “It is too far. I live in Chenghai. It takes me more than 40 minutes to drive here.”
P6: “I cannot take part in it. My home is too far away from here. It takes me approximately 40 or 45 minutes even if I drive on the expressway.”
P3: “There is no direct bus. I have to transfer three times.”
P7: “It takes me half an hour to get here by bus and I have to spend more than one hour to wait for the bus, it is so inconvenient.”
P9: “There is no public transportation in my living area. Therefore, I need to call the taxi every time. It is truly an inconvenience.”
P1, P12 and P15: “Hospital parking drives me crazy.”
P5: “The parking service is terrible, you know, it is always full.”
P7: “It’s too expensive. I really cannot understand why this (CR) is not included in my medical insurance?”
P8, P11: “I have no income. I [already] borrowed money from relatives to pay for the expensive cardiac surgery. I do not have extra money to do the rehabilitation.”
P16: “I heard that this (cardiac rehabilitation) will cost at least thousands of dollars a month, and I can’t afford it.”
Theme 2: social support
P3: “It takes my son two hours to drive me here. It’s too far. My son needs to work, and he can’t take me to here every time.”
P6: “My son has to go to work, so he can’t pick me up every time.”
P9: “I have to work after discharge. You know, I cannot stop. I have to pay the mortgage every month. It is impossible for me to do rehabilitation two times each week on a workday. You know, the CR center does not open on the weekend.”
P10: “I operate a water and electricity decoration company. Now it is the end of the year, and many families need to decorate their house. I have a lot of work to do now, and I have been rushing to make sure everyone can move into their newly decorated house before the Spring Festival. I don’t have enough time to arrange space in my schedule for rehabilitation.”
Theme 3: misunderstanding of rehabilitation
P1: “I go to the gym near my house every day.”
P5: “I have a treadmill at home, and I insist on running every day.”
P9: “For exercise, I can exercise at home after I leave the hospital.”
P11: “There are a lot of fitness machines downstairs in my community. I can do that in the community.”
Theme 4: program and health system-level factors
P1 and P9: “The center opens from 8 am to 5:30 pm from Monday to Friday and it is closed on weekends. You know, for me, I only have time on weekends. Therefore, that might be the biggest obstacle for me.”
P10: “If the center (cardiac rehabilitation center) was like those convenience stores which opened everywhere, it might be easier for me to get access.”
Theme 5 impression of the cardiac team
For some participants, their impression of the health care providers, especially the person who referred them to the CR center, impacted their decision-making process. Patients believe that doctors’ advice is more believable and valuable than nurses’ advice.
Theme 6 psychological distress and personality
P3: “It is unfair, you know, I did a lot of good things in my life. I always supported others and helped others. I thought I would get good fortune in my life. However, it is not....... I don’t want to think about these things (rehabilitation). Let it go......”
P16: “My mother-in-law is 83 years old; she does nothing every day. Her son (my husband) died 26 years ago. I have no choice but to take care of her. She is healthy without any disease. So why did I get sick? Why did I get the heart attack? It is unfair. Is it not?”(Tears in her eyes).
P6: “Please do not ask me anything about my heart. I do not believe I have heart disease.”
P11: “The hospital is a dirty place with a lot of unlucky things. It was a cemetery many years ago. It’s horrible, I don’t want to stay here.”
P15: “Do not ask me to come to the hospital every week. I want to stay at home.”
Mixed-methods findings
Some findings from the qualitative research confirmed the findings from quantitative research and helped explain the quantitative results in more detail.
For the first domain (logistical factors), distance and transportation problems were the most important barriers with higher scores. In the qualitative phase, these barriers were confirmed, and participants mentioned that more than 40 min of driving distance might be a cutoff point. In addition, participants who live in rural areas without public transportation seemed less likely to take part in the program.
The cost of CR, in the quantitative part, focused on the cost of transportation and gas. However, in the qualitative part, it focused on the program cost, which was not covered by outpatient medical insurance in China. Participants needed to pay the expensive assessment fee (such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing) and the 36 session guided exercises fee by themselves. Some participants thought this would be a large burden for them.
Severe weather was not evaluated as an important barrier in either the quantitative or qualitative results. The lack of parking space at the hospital was a barrier that emerged in the qualitative phase.
In terms of the second domain (CR need), “I already exercise at home, or in my community” was identified as a barrier. This was also confirmed by the qualitative results. Participants thought they could go to the gym, or some of them had a treadmill at home. They thought rehabilitation was the same as normal physical activity.
For the third subscale (time conflicts), the qualitative results confirmed that caregiver role conflict and work conflict were the main barriers.
Therefore, most of the results from quantitative research were confirmed by the results from qualitative research. However, during the qualitative phase, some new themes emerged. These include the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions, impressions of health care providers and hospital surroundings, psychological distress and personality. This supplements the quantitative findings. The results of both the quantitative and qualitative phases are jointly displayed in Table
4.
Table 4
Integration of quantitative and qualitative results
Domain 1 logistical factors | 1…of distance | 3.29 ± 1.565 | Theme1 logistics factors | Distance | Confirmed by quantitative and qualitative results Details: more than 40 minutes driving distance seems too far for participants |
2…of cost | 2.76 ± 1.425 | Insufficient economic support | Confirmed by quantitative and qualitative results However, the detail of cost is different. In quantitative result, the cost focus on gas, parking, but in qualitative result, the cost refers to grogram cost. The program cost was not covered by outpatient medical insurance. |
3…of transportation problems | 2.99 ± 1.503 | Inconvenient traffic | Confirmed by quantitative and qualitative results. Detail: living in rural areas without public transportation |
8…severe weather | 1.73 ± 0.888 | In qualitative result, no people mentioned weather as a barrier |
Parking difficulty | Detail: lack of parking space in hospital and it costs time to find the parking space |
Domain 2 CR need | 5…I did not know about cardiac rehab | 1.61 ± 0.825 | Theme2 Misunderstanding of CR | | Not a big barrier. In qualitative part, all patients claimed they were referred and they have heard cardiac rehabilitation |
6…I do not need cardiac rehab | 1.82 ± 1.069 | Doubt the effect of cardiac rehabilitation | Confirmed by quantitative and qualitative results. In qualitative part, some participants said they just want to treat the disease, there is no need to do rehabilitation |
7…I already exercise at home, or in my community | 2.69 ± 1.509 | Daily activities can replace rehabilitation | Confirmed by quantitative and qualitative results. Detail: participant think they can go to the gym or some of them have treadmill at home. They think rehabilitation is the same as physical activities. |
17… many people with heart problems do not go, and they are fine | 1.66 ± 0.785 | |
18… I can manage my heart problem on my own | 1.68 ± 0.879 |
21…I prefer to take care of my health alone, not in a group | 1.70 ± 0.896 |
Domain 3 Time conflicts | 4…of family responsibilities | 2.17 ± 1.299 | Theme3 Low social support | Lack of family support Caregiver role conflict | In qualitative part, most participants claimed that take care of their grandchildren or family members is a barrier. |
10…travel | 1.74 ± 1.019 | The center opens on daytime and just open from Monday to Friday, it is conflict with the working time |
11…of time constraints | 2.48 ± 1.496 |
12…of work responsibilities | 2.43 ± 1.666 | Work Conflict | In qualitative part, some younger patients claimed that they need return to work and there is no spare time to do the rehabilitation in the center |
Domain4 Program and health system-level factors | 16…my doctor did not feel it was necessary | 1.54 ± 0.743 | Theme4 Program and health system-level factors | | |
19… I think I was referred, but the rehab program did not contact me | 1.64 ± 0.842 | | |
20…it took too long to get referred and into the program | 1.65 ± 0.818 | Limited cardiac rehabilitation center | No CR center near their home |
Covid-19 test | New information emerged in qualitative phase. It is a trouble to show the negative result every time when enter the hospital |
Domain5 Comorbidities/ Functional status | 13…I do not have the energy | 1.99 ± 1.171 | | | No information emerged in this domain in the qualitative phase |
14…other health problems prevent me from going | 1.75 ± 0.938 |
9…I find exercise tiring or painful | 2.00 ± 1.208 |
15…I am too old | 1.86 ± 1.141 |
| Theme5 Impression on healthcare team | | New information emerged in qualitative phase Referred by physicians or cardiologists is better than referred by nurses |
| Theme 6 Psychological distress | Escaping | New information emerged in qualitative phase |
Anger and Hostility | New information emerged in qualitative phase |
Pessimism | New information emerged in qualitative phase |
Discussion
The results of this mixed-method study indicated multilevel barriers for patients with CHD to take part in the hospital center-based phase 2 CR programs. The distance from the CR facility was rated as the most significant barrier to enrollment, followed by transportation problems and CR costs. Other significant barriers included “I already exercise at home, or in my community”, time constraints and work responsibilities.
Distance has been identified as the first major barrier, which is in accordance with most previous studies [
13,
31,
32]. In the qualitative interview, participants reported that normally more than 40 minutes of driving distance would be a cutoff point for them. They were unlikely to attend the CR if they needed to spend more than 40 minutes on the road. A previous study reported that patients are significantly less likely to enroll in CR where they must drive 60 minutes or more to the closest program [
33]. Therefore, we suggest that health care providers take geography into consideration when referring patients to CR.
Transportation was identified as the second CR barrier, which has also been widely suggested in previous studies [
13,
34]. Specific reasons found in the qualitative part are that patients living in remote areas often face a lack of public transportation. Even if there are public buses, they need to wait for a long time for them to arrive. Therefore, they think it is not convenient. Some people need to call taxis or rideshares which would increase their financial burden. With the development of the internet and the popularity of mobile phones, establishing patient-centered remote rehabilitation or home-based CR might be an effective way to alleviate this problem [
35]. A study suggested that transporting staff and equipment to community settings might be a good way to overcome some of these barriers [
36].
The cost of CR is a common barrier to attending CR, which is in accordance with a previous study in China [
12]. According to the National Health Care Security Administration [
37], China achieved 95% health coverage in 2020, and inpatients can be reimbursed for 70–80% of their medical expenses during hospitalization. However, outpatient participation in a CR program is not covered by the National Health Service. Therefore, some patients could not afford the CR program after hospital discharge. However, in most other countries, health insurance companies fully cover CR program costs [
38,
39], and cost was not identified as a barrier in these countries. Therefore, it is better to include the CR program in the government insurance system to promote CR attendance. Additionally, considering the CR cost, more innovative and cost-effective possibilities should be explored.
Time conflict and work responsibilities were also identified as barriers in our study. Some elderly patients have to take on many family responsibilities, such as taking care of their grandchildren and doing housework for the families of their children’s generation. This is very normal in Chinese culture. For younger patients, time conflict refers to the need to work on workdays, and availability only on weekends. However, the CR center at the public hospital always closed on weekends and at night. Therefore, a flexible time schedule might be a way to improve CR attendance for elderly and working patients. Likewise, replacing some of the day classes with evening options could make it easier for some patients to attend.
In contrast to the findings in Liu’s study [
13], bad weather and patients who did not know about CR were not identified as barriers in our study. This might be because our hospital is located in southern China with lovely weather in all four seasons. Moreover, the CR center in the hospital is designed to meet national standards. Inpatients will receive the standard phase 1 CR treatment and be referred to the phase 2 CR automatically if they are eligible. We have a specific educational session focused on introducing phase 2 CR before patient discharge. Therefore, most patients in our study had heard about CR during their hospitalization. However, in Liu’s study, 90% of participants had not even heard of CR. Therefore, inviting patients to take part early on during phase I CR and holding a specific educational session to introduce phase 2 CR might help create a space to motivate patients to participate in phase 2 CR. However, it is important to note that in our research, even though most patients had heard about CR, they did not participate in the phase 2 CR program. Just simply introducing CR without describing the program in detail is not always sufficient to motivate program participation.
The results from the qualitative phase confirmed most of the quantitative results and provided a deep explanation for the results. In addition, some new information also emerged in the qualitative phase. Parking difficulties were a barrier that emerged in the qualitative phase. This is in accordance with most previous research [
40]. Many patients complained that it is quite difficult to find a parking space at the hospital. Parking space at the hospital is limited and not free. This might be a specific phenomenon to our local hospital, and it provides insight that hospitals should think about this issue ahead when establishing CR centers.
In addition, COVID-19 screening and testing were identified as barriers in our quantitative study phase. During the pandemic, our center did not stop CR program delivery; however, we did not provide any home-based programs due to limited resources and lack of standard home-based CR model. Patients needed to come to our on-site center 2–3 times a week, and every 72 hours, they needed to show a negative test result. Some of them complained that it is terrible to have to repeatedly do the nasal swab to show a negative result when they enter the center. A global cross-sectional study reported that during the pandemic, approximately 49% of CR programs had stopped CR delivery, and 25.7% of patients had to stop their exercise because they had no place to exercise [
22]. Moreover, previous research reported that other barriers related to COVID-19 restriction arose, including concern about COVID-19, worry about the risk of infection and resistance to wearing a mask during exercise. Therefore, during the pandemic, some remote home-based programs might be explored to overcome some of these barriers. A current national cross-sectional study in UK reported that telephone was most commonly used to deliver cardiac rehabilitation, and some centers used sophisticated technology such as teleconferencing during the pandemic [
41].
In the qualitative phase, two new themes emerged, namely, impressions of health care providers and hospital surroundings, psychological distress and personality. Some patients were referred by nurses whom they were not familiar with. Therefore, they were less likely to fully believe what the nurse told them. This reminds us that CR is a comprehensive program that requires the cooperation of a multidisciplinary team. Cardiologists play an important role in the referral process. The health care provider’s impression is also viewed as a barrier in this study. Some patients believe that nurses or physicians who guide CRs should be healthy and slim. They do not think a nurse who does not match their physical expectations can help them maintain a healthy weight. This is in accordance with some previous studies [
42,
43], which reported that physician body mass index (BMI) is a potential barrier to obesity care. Physicians with a normal BMI were more likely to engage their obese patients in weight loss discussions than overweight/obese physicians. Physicians with a normal BMI had greater confidence in their ability to provide diet and exercise counseling to their obese patients. A high percentage of physicians with a normal BMI believed that overweight/obese patients would be less likely to trust weight loss advice from overweight/obese doctors. For some participants, their impression of the surrounding rehabilitation center also impacted their decision-making process.
Psychological distress and specific personality traits, such as hopelessness, pessimism, fractiousness, anger and disbelief of health care providers, were barriers to CR. Some participants expressed their suspicions about the program. They believed the purpose of the hospital was only to make money. This theme is in accordance with previous research and adds information on the relationship between psychological distress and poor CR attendance [
44]. These findings, combined with the last theme (impressions of staff and the surroundings of CR centers), suggest that health care providers should recognize that psychological distress and personality might interfere with patients’ decision-making. Therefore, attending to the emotional context of prospective CR patients is quite important. In addition, some psychosocial assessments and interventions should be used to evaluate potential participants and build a good relationship between patients and health care providers. For example, some mindfulness-based practices are reported to be effective in improving the interpersonal relationship between patients and health care providers [
45].
There are several implications for practice and research. First, this research identified the barriers to CR in the current Chaoshan region in China during the pandemic, which will provide evidence for intervention programs targeted at removing these barriers. Second, given the results of this study, which identified mainly logistical barriers, one possible solution is to improve the availability of home-based programs. Home-based programs are a safe and effective alternative for low- and moderate-risk patients. Hospital-based CR centers can explore suitable home-based CR, especially in this COVID-19 pandemic period.
Conclusion
This study involved collecting both quantitative and qualitative data and intentionally integrating the data to provide a better understanding of the barriers to hospital-based phase 2 CR programs among CHD patients in the Chinese context. Both the quantitative and qualitative phases confirmed that logical factors, such as distance, transportation, program cost, time conflict and responsibility, are the main barriers to participating in CR. The qualitative results provide a deep explanation of these barriers and reveal that impressions of CR teams, psychosocial distress and specific personality traits are barriers. Moreover, the COVID-19 testing restrictions were also a new barrier during this study period. Therefore, intervention programs aimed at promoting participation should focus on how to overcome these barriers. Some innovative methods, such as home-based CR, mobile health, and hybrid programs, might be effective in overcoming some of these barriers and improving the participation rate. In addition, psychological and social assessments are needed to evaluate the psychosocial status of patients, and some psychosocial intervention programs might be beneficial to overcome some of these barriers.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.