The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The Birmingham rehabilitation uptake maximisation study (BRUM): a randomised controlled trial comparing home-based with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

Jolly, K., Lip, G.Y.H., Taylor, R.S., Raftery, J., Mant, J., Lane, D., Greenfield, S. and Stevens, A. (2009) The Birmingham rehabilitation uptake maximisation study (BRUM): a randomised controlled trial comparing home-based with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation Heart, 95, (1), pp. 36-42. (doi:10.1136/hrt.2007.127209).

Record type: Article


Objective: to compare the outcomes of home-based (using the Heart Manual) and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes.

Design: randomised controlled trial and parallel economic

Setting: predominantly inner-city, multi-ethnic population
in the West Midlands, England.

Patients: 525 patients referred to four hospitals for
cardiac rehabilitation following myocardial infarction or
coronary revascularisation.

Interventions: a home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme compared with centre-based programmes.

Main outcome measures: smoking cessation, blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP)), total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, psychological status (HADS
anxiety and depression) and exercise capacity (incremental
shuttle walking test, ISWT) measured at 12 months. Health service resource use, quality of life utility and costs were quantified.

Results: there were no significant differences in the
main outcomes when the home-based was compared with the centre-based programme at 12 months. Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) for SBP was 1.94 mm Hg (21.1 to 5.0); DBP 0.42 mm Hg (21.25 to 2.1); TC 0.1 mmol/l (20.05 to 0.24); HADS anxiety 20.02 (20.69 to 0.65); HADS depression 20.35 (20.95 to 0.25); distance on ISWT 221.5 m (248.3 to 5.2). The relative risk of being a smoker in the home arm was 0.90. The cost per patient to the NHS was significantly higher in the home arm at £198, (95% CI 189 to 208) compared to £157 (95% CI 139 to 175) in the centre-based arm. However when the patients’ cost of travel was included, these differences were no longer significant.

Conclusions: a home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme
does not produce inferior outcomes when compared to traditional centre-based programmes as provided in the United Kingdom.

PDF 36.full.pdf - Other
Restricted to Repository staff only
Download (314kB)

More information

Published date: 2009
Organisations: Other, Community Clinical Sciences


Local EPrints ID: 147835
PURE UUID: b3cc0dea-4a49-47ab-b6f5-73d382ca0fe2

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 26 Apr 2010 14:02
Last modified: 18 Jul 2017 19:33

Export record



Author: K. Jolly
Author: G.Y.H. Lip
Author: R.S. Taylor
Author: J. Raftery
Author: J. Mant
Author: D. Lane
Author: S. Greenfield
Author: A. Stevens

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton:

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.