Paper
Thursday, 20 July 2006
This presentation is part of : Caring for the Chronically Ill: Models and Programs
Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Enrolled in Cardiac Rehabilitation vs. Those Enrolled in a Coronary Heart Disease Reversal Program
Julie Chester-Wood, RN, MSN, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA, Sarah E. Haas, RN, MSN, Cardiac Surgical Intensive Care, Mercy General Hospital, Sacramento, CA, USA, and Barbara Rickabaugh, RN, MS, Center for Advancing Nursing Research & Clinical Practice, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Learning Objective #1: Identify a research instrument suitable to measure health related quality of life in patients with coronary disease.
Learning Objective #2: Describe the difference between a traditional cardiac rehabilitation program and a comprehensive cardiac reversal program.
Purpose:  Is there a difference in perceived quality of life for patients with coronary artery disease enrolled in comprehensive 2-year lifestyle modification program fashioned from Dean Ornish’s research on aggressive lifestyle modification compared to patients in a traditional 12 week cardiac rehabilitation program. Using Nola Pender’s Health Promotion Model this study explored cognitive and psychosocial factors that can be deterrents to lifestyle change as well as health promoting behavior.
 

Method:

After IRB approval, a convenience sample (N=27) was recruited.  This experimental pilot study involved the use of Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index Cardiac Version IV (HRQOL) in both groups. The questionnaire measured the satisfaction and importance of various life domains. Four domains were covered; they were health and functioning, socioeconomic, psychosocial/spiritual and family. Assessments were conducted at baseline and again at three months.  
Findings: 

The results of this study revealed no difference in HRQOL scores in each of the categories between the two groups at baseline. At the third-month assessment a significant change in HRQOL scores was seen within both of the groups (p = 0.002 in cardiac rehabilitation; p = 0.008 in the reversal program) and there was no significant difference in HRQOL scores between the two groups at three months.  

Conclusion:

These findings indicate that HRQOL improved significantly in both groups from baseline assessment to three months. This is also consistent with evidence that shows patients improve HRQOL when participating in cardiac rehabilitation programs (Jones 1991).

See more of Caring for the Chronically Ill: Models and Programs
See more of The 17th International Nursing Research Congress Focusing on Evidence-Based Practice (19-22 July 2006)