Interrater Reliability Across 7 Established Risk Stratification Protocols in Cardiac Rehabilitation
- PMID: 33035513
- DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.08.020
Interrater Reliability Across 7 Established Risk Stratification Protocols in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the interrater agreement among physiotherapists in using 7 risk stratification (RS) protocols to evaluate participants of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and the main factors associated with disagreements that emerged during the RS process.
Design: Cross-sectional observational study.
Setting: Outpatient rehabilitation center.
Participants: Patients (N=72) enrolled in CR with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. Mean age was 65.62±12.14 y, and mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was 29.18±4.56.
Interventions: Not applicable.
Main outcome measures: The main outcome was to the agreement between 2 physiotherapists in the patients' RS process, using 7 protocols established in the literature for use in CR: American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, American College of Sports Medicine, American Heart Association, Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia, Sociedad Española de Cardiología, and Société Française de Cardiologie. In addition, the main disagreement factors were assessed.
Results: Interrater agreement was classified as moderate-to-good in the 7 included RS protocols (kappa index between 0.53-0.76). The most important aspects that led to disagreement between physiotherapists were reported in 5 categories. The protocol with the greater agreement index was the American College of Sports Medicine (93.10%; n=67), and the one with the greater disagreement was the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (27.80%; n=20).
Conclusions: Moderate-to-good interrater agreement among physiotherapists in using 7 RS protocols was observed. Major disagreements were the definition of abnormal hemodynamic responses, rhythm disorders, left ventricular dysfunction, and interpretation of the patient's clinical characteristics.
Keywords: Cardiac rehabilitation; Cardiovascular diseases; Rehabilitation.
Copyright © 2020 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Analysis of agreement between cardiac risk stratification protocols applied to participants of a center for cardiac rehabilitation.Braz J Phys Ther. 2016 Jul-Aug;20(4):298-305. doi: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0159. Epub 2016 Apr 1. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016. PMID: 27556385 Free PMC article.
-
An investigation into whether cardiac risk stratification protocols actually predict complications in cardiac rehabilitation programs?Clin Rehabil. 2021 May;35(5):775-784. doi: 10.1177/0269215520978499. Epub 2020 Dec 8. Clin Rehabil. 2021. PMID: 33292000
-
Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Virtual Reality-Based Therapy in Patients of Cardiovascular Rehabilitation: A Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Apr;101(4):642-649. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.006. Epub 2020 Jan 8. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020. PMID: 31926142 Clinical Trial.
-
Assessing Physical Activity as a Core Component in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A POSITION STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIOVASCULAR AND PULMONARY REHABILITATION.J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2016 Jul-Aug;36(4):217-29. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000191. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2016. PMID: 27307067 Review.
-
2018 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018 Apr;11(4):e000037. doi: 10.1161/HCQ.0000000000000037. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018. PMID: 29599285 Review. No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical