Attitudes towards acceptance of an innovative home-based and remote sensing rehabilitation protocol among cardiovascular patients in Shantou, China

BackgroundCardiac 康复(CR ) 协议有对多样化作为基于医院或基于中心的 CR 的一种选择包括本垒的心脏的电视康复(HBCTR ) 。采用本垒的心脏的电视康复的使用，向如此的电子健康技术的接受估计心脏病患者态度是必要的，特别在如此的技术的知识的中国， deficient.MethodsInterviews 在 Shantou 大学医学院的首先隶属于的医院里被进行， Shantou，中国。在经皮的冠的 interventional (一种总线标准) 以后外科，病人们完成了 survey.ResultsAmong 150 个病人，仅仅， 13% 曾经听说了 HBCTR。在我们的 HBCTR 节目的介绍以后， 60% 病人愿意参予节目。从我们问询表数据的 multivariate 分析，变老(或：0.92， 95% CI：0.86-0.98；P = 0.007 ) ，普通家庭月刊收入(或：0.13， 95% CI：0.05-0.34；P &#x0003c；0.001 ) ，教育水平(或：0.24， 95% CI：0.10-0.59；P = 0.002 ) 并且 physical&#x000a0；锻练时间(或：0.19， 95% CI：0.06-0.56；P = 0.003 ) 是为 HBCTR 的接受的独立预言者。从为参予的原因，病人们选择了：提高的安全和独立(28.3%) ，自我监视器的能力物理条件日报(25.4%) ，并且有自动并且紧急情况警戒(23.1%) 。推理因为拒绝：太拖累的操作(34.3%) 和不必要的协议(19.4%).ConclusionsMost 病人关于 HBCTR 缺乏知识，但是在他们了解了节目以后，自愿参与。几个个人和生活方式因素影响了他们节目的接受。这些显示两个都，技术的改进和节目的更好的理解将提高活跃参予。

Background Cardiac rehabilitation （CR） protocols have diversified to include home-based cardiac tele-rehabilitation （HBCTR） as an alternative to hospital-based or center-based CR. To adopt the use of home-based cardiac tele-rehabilitation, it is necessary to assess cardiac patients＇ attitudes towards acceptance of such e-health technology, especially in China where knowledge of such technology is deficient. Methods Interviews were conducted in the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China. After percutaneous coronary interventional （PCI） surgery, patients completed the survey. Results Among the 150 patients, only 13% had ever heard of HBCTR. After an introduction of our HBCTR program, 60% of patients were willing to participate in the program. From our multivariate analysis of questionnaire data, age （OR： 0.92, 95% CI： 0.864）.98; P = 0.007）, average family monthly income （OR： 0.13, 95% CI： 0.05-0.341 P 〈 0.001）, education level （OR： 0.24, 95% CI： 0.10-0.59; P = 0.002） and physical exercise time （OR： 0.19, 95% CI： 0.06-0.56; P = 0.003） were independent predictors for acceptance of HBCTR. From the reasons for participation, patients selected： enhanced safety and independ ence （28.3%）, ability to self-monitor physical conditions daily （25 A%）, and having automatic and emergency alert （23.1%）. Reasons for refusal were： too cumbersome operation （34.3%） and unnecessary protocol （19.4%）. Conclusions Most patients lacked knowledge about HBCTR but volunteered to participate after they have learned about the program. Several personal and life-style factors influenced their acceptance of the program. These indicate that both improvement of technology and better understanding of the program will enhance active participation.