Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 5;2015:2101–2110.

Table 3.

Concordance rates and difference in concordance between study arms for the four prescribed CR therapies (N=12,111).

CR therapies Crude concordance at baselinea) Crude concordance at follow-upb) Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)c) N (Clinics) Missing valuesd)
Intervention Control Intervention Control
Psychosocial domain (A&F intervention for arm A)
Education 87.5% (1,411/1,612) 81.2% (375/462) 90.4% (5,045/5,584) 71.3% (2,191/3,072) 1.28 (0.65 to 2.54) 10,730 (18) 1,202 (10.1%)
Lifestyle 63.0% (1,023/1,624) 34.3% (155/452) 63.2% (3,548/5,610) 25.9% (800/3,088) 0.75 (0.14 to 4.03) 10,774 (18) 1,158 (9.7%)
Physical domain (A&F intervention for arm B)
Exercise 82.6% (399/483) 89.9% (1,460/1,625) 83.6% (2,667/3,191) 95.1% (5,378/5,654) 0.58 (0.24 to 1.38) 10,953 (18) 979 (8.2%)
Relaxation 38.8% (124/320) 72.6% (976/1,345) 51.6% (1,211/2,348) 82.5% (3,952/4,791) 0.4 (0.06 to 2.79) 8,804 (18) 3,128 (26.2%)

Abbreviations: A&F= audit and feedback, CDS= computerized decision support, CI= confidence interval, CR= cardiac rehabilitation.

a)

Observed concordance during first 3 months of study period.

b)

Observed concordance after baseline period until end of study.

c)

Odds ratio of improvement in guideline concordance after receiving the A&F intervention for 1 year versus no intervention; adjusted for patients’ age, gender, indication for CR, and clinics’ type and size.

d)

Patients for whom the CDS could not provide advice caused by missing data and/or it was not recorded whether the therapy was included in the patients’ CR program.