Anyetei-Anum, Grace Patrice

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is essential to secondary cardiovascular disease prevention and management of cardiac patients. Despite its proven benefits, CR remains underutilized with enrollment and completion rates ranging from 10-30% in the US. Yet, there is a scarcity of nationally representative data among diverse populations on socioeconomic differences in barriers and beliefs of CR participation and delivery mode preferences. Hypothesis: The perceptions (barriers, beliefs), CR delivery mode preferences, and CR utilization (prior enrollment) varies by socioeconomic status (SES) among CR-eligible individuals. Methods: We conducted an anonymous national electronic survey from March 2023 to January 2024 of individuals self-reporting a prior CR-eligible diagnosis. The 22-item CR Barriers Scale assessed perceived barriers to CR enrollment and participation using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). A 13-item, validated questionnaire assessed 4 subscales pertaining to patients’ beliefs about CR, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree): perceived necessity, concerns about exercise, practical barriers and perceived suitability. CR delivery mode preferences were ascertained (eg, virtual, at-home, etc.). Mean barriers and belief scores as well as delivery mode preferences were stratified by SES. Low SES was defined as ≤ high school education, Medicaid insurance, or uninsured. High SES was defined as > high school education and non-Medicaid health insurance. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics with R software. Results: A total of 466 participants completed the survey (38.1% women, 30.6% minoritized racial/ethnic group, 29.6% low SES, 95% response rate) ( Table 1 ). The majority indicated prior enrollment in CR (81.5%) with no difference by SES. CR barrier scores did not differ significantly by SES (p=0.331) ( Table 2 ). Beliefs about CR perceived necessity and perceived suitability differed by SES (p<0.001 and p=0.025), but beliefs regarding concerns about exercise and practical barriers did not. The low SES group reported a higher preference for completely at-home CR compared to the high SES group (33.6% vs 7.4%, p<0.001). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that CR beliefs varied by SES while utilization did not. For CR-eligible patients experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, at-home CR may be a preferred alternative to center-based CR to increase CR participation and adherence.