The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: cost-effectiveness and patient adherence.

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN72884263

Enrollment

650

Registered

2003-04-25

Start date

2001-10-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2015-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cardiovascular diseases: Heart disease Circulatory System Heart disease

Interventions

Hospital-based versus home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes provided by specialist cardiac rehabilitation nurses. Both programmes will include exercise, relaxation, education and life-style cou

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Consecutive patients admitted to two acute hospitals in the West-Midlands, serving a multi-ethnic patient catchment, following myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularisation (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [PTCA]/coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Not provided at time of registration.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Primary outcomes at six months and one year: 1. Cardiac risk factors (serum cholesterol, blood pressure, exercise capacity measured by the shuttle test, psychological status-HADS, smoking cessation) 2. Uptake and patient reported adherence to each programme 3. Patient satisfaction and perceptions of the programmes 4. Quality of life 5. Use of secondary preventive medication 6. Health care utilisation and cardiac events Costs would be assessed from two perspectives: that of the NHS and socially. NHS costs will be based on resource inputs (time with cardiac nurses, other NHS personnel, travel time, drugs, use of other NHS services) costed up to include labour and overhead costs. Societal costs will extend NHS costs to include costs to patients and to any other relevant agencies (to be decided via patient interviews and costed as for the NHS). If the outcomes differ between the models, a cost-effectiveness evaluation will explore incremental cost-effectiveness using the outcome measures noted above. Otherwise a cost-minimisation analysis is appropriate. In either case, modelling will explore the generalisability of the results by locating the costs in a national context by collecting data from other English rehabilitation programmes by means of a survey. The results will be compared with the range of other CHD interventions, linked to work already in progress (JR's involvement in a national cost effectiveness model funded by DoH).	—

Measure

Time frame

Primary outcomes at six months and one year: 1. Cardiac risk factors (serum cholesterol, blood pressure, exercise capacity measured by the shuttle test, psychological status-HADS, smoking cessation) 2. Uptake and patient reported adherence to each programme 3. Patient satisfaction and perceptions of the programmes 4. Quality of life 5. Use of secondary preventive medication 6. Health care utilisation and cardiac events Costs would be assessed from two perspectives: that of the NHS and socially. NHS costs will be based on resource inputs (time with cardiac nurses, other NHS personnel, travel time, drugs, use of other NHS services) costed up to include labour and overhead costs. Societal costs will extend NHS costs to include costs to patients and to any other relevant agencies (to be decided via patient interviews and costed as for the NHS). If the outcomes differ between the models, a cost-effectiveness evaluation will explore incremental cost-effectiveness using the outcome measures noted above. Otherwise a cost-minimisation analysis is appropriate. In either case, modelling will explore the generalisability of the results by locating the costs in a national context by collecting data from other English rehabilitation programmes by means of a survey. The results will be compared with the range of other CHD interventions, linked to work already in progress (JR's involvement in a national cost effectiveness model funded by DoH).

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Not provided at time of registration.	—

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Mar 18, 2026