Cardiac rehabilitation programme accreditation and certification: Comparing international practices, mapping standards, benchmarks, and future directions – A scoping review
Rattachement africain : au. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
AIMS: Programme accreditation and certification are key mechanisms for standardising, assuring, and continuously improving the quality of cardiac rehabilitation. Comparative evidence on existing accreditation and certification schemes remains limited. This review compared these schemes to identify key characteristics, standards, convergences, divergences, implementation, and gaps to inform future quality improvement directions. METHODS: A scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted searching four databases, grey literature and accreditation bodies' websites (August-September 2025). Cardiac rehabilitation certification schemes with publicly accessible descriptive or evaluative documentation were included. Extracted data were analysed narratively. RESULTS: Eleven peer-reviewed studies and 38 organisational documents met the inclusion criteria. Four schemes from USA, United Kingdom, Europe, and the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation were included in the comparative analysis because sufficient public documentation was available. Certification standards were mapped across schemes, consolidated into 18 and classified according to Donabedian domains. Thirteen standards were universal (endorsed by all four schemes) or near-universal (endorsed by three) including multidisciplinary care, assessments, exercise, education, and counselling; however, their operationalisation varies. Certification uptake was concentrated in high-income settings. Reported barriers were related to resources, cost, and infrastructure. Evidence of certification impact was limited. CONCLUSION: Shared standards suggest broad consensus on the core components of high-quality cardiac rehabilitation. Resource, cost, and infrastructure barriers may influence certification accessibility and adoption. Leveraging shared standards while allowing flexible implementation pathways may support broader uptake of quality-assured cardiac rehabilitation. Further rigorous evaluation is needed to determine whether certification translates into sustained improvements in service quality and meaningful health gains.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Cardiac rehabilitation programme accreditation and certification: Comparing international practices, mapping standards, benchmarks, and future directions – A scoping review
- Date Crossref
- 24/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Queensland Health pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisme public
-
The University of Queensland pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Griffith University Griffith Health pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Bond University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
The University of Sydney pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Faculty of Health Centre for Online Health pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences and Health pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Queensland Health, The University of Queensland et Griffith Health — Griffith University, avec 5 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.