↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Australian cardiac rehabilitation exercise parameter characteristics and perceptions of high-intensity interval training: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Australian cardiac rehabilitation exercise parameter characteristics and perceptions of high-intensity interval training: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/oajsm.s160306
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda L Hannan, Wayne Hing, Mike Climstein, Jeff S Coombes, James Furness, Rohan Jayasinghe, Joshua Byrnes

Abstract

This study explored current demographics, characteristics, costs, evaluation methods, and outcome measures used in Australian cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. It also determined the actual usage and perceptions of high-intensity interval training (HIIT). A cross-sectional observational web-based survey was distributed to 328 Australian CR programs nationally. A total of 261 programs completed the survey (79.6% response rate). Most Australian CR programs were located in a hospital setting (76%), offered exercise sessions once a week (52%) for 6-8 weeks (49%) at moderate intensity (54%) for 46-60 min (62%), and serviced 101-500 clients per annum (38%). HIIT was reported in only 1% of programs, and 27% of respondents believed that it was safe while 42% of respondents were unsure. Lack of staff (25%), monitoring resources (20%), and staff knowledge (18%) were the most commonly reported barriers to the implementation of HIIT. Overall, Australian CR coordinators are unsure of the cost of exercise sessions. There is variability in CR delivery across Australia. Only half of programs reassess outcome measures postintervention, and cost of exercise sessions is unknown. Although HIIT is recommended in international CR guidelines, it is essentially not being used in Australia and clinicians are unsure as to the safety of HIIT. Lack of resources and staff knowledge were perceived as the biggest barriers to HIIT implementation, and there are inconsistent perceptions of prescreening and monitoring requirements. This study highlights the need to educate health professionals about the benefits and safety of HIIT to improve its usage and patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 23%
Sports and Recreations 10 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,607,615
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#219
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,603
of 330,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.