Condition category
Circulatory System
Date applied
Date assigned
Last edited
Retrospectively registered
Overall trial status
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting

Plain English Summary

Not provided at time of registration

Trial website

Contact information



Primary contact

Dr Kate Jolly


Contact details

Department of Public Health & Epidemiology
University of Birmingham
The Public Health Building
B15 2TT
United Kingdom
+44 (0)121 414 7552

Additional identifiers

EudraCT number number

Protocol/serial number

HTA 99/32/09

Study information

Scientific title



Study hypothesis

What is the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, taking uptake into account, of home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation? What are reasons for non-participation?

To answer these questions we will determine:
1. Whether there are differences at six months and one year following hospital- and home-based rehabilitation in:
1.1. Objective cardiac risk factors
1.2. Patient reported uptake and adherence
1.3. And whether these differ between patient groups (the elderly, women and patients from ethnic minority groups)
2. The relative costs of hospital- and home-based cardiac rehabilitation from both the patients' and NHS perspectives
3. Qualitative insights into the reasons for non-participation in the cardiac rehabilitation programmes

Ethics approval

Not provided at time of registration.

Study design

Randomised controlled trial

Primary study design


Secondary study design

Randomised controlled trial

Trial setting


Trial type

Quality of life

Patient information sheet


Cardiovascular diseases: Heart disease


Hospital-based versus home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes provided by specialist cardiac rehabilitation nurses. Both programmes will include exercise, relaxation, education and life-style counselling, with referral for psychological treatments as indicated. The home programme will be based around a patient-held manual (The Heart Manual for MI patients) with home visits and telephone support from the cardiac rehabilitation staff. A manual will be developed for revascularisation patients.

Intervention type



Not Specified

Drug names

Primary outcome measures

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 outcome measures

Not provided at time of registration.

Overall trial start date


Overall trial end date


Reason abandoned


Participant 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]).

Participant type


Age group

Not Specified



Target number of participants


Participant exclusion criteria

Not provided at time of registration.

Recruitment start date


Recruitment end date



Countries of recruitment

United Kingdom

Trial participating centre

Department of Public Health & Epidemiology
B15 2TT
United Kingdom

Sponsor information


Department of Health (UK)

Sponsor details

Quarry House
Quarry Hill
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1132 545 843

Sponsor type




Funder type


Funder name

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme - HTA (UK)

Alternative name(s)

Funding Body Type

Funding Body Subtype


Results and Publications

Publication and dissemination plan

Not provided at time of registration

Intention to publish date

Participant level data

Not provided at time of registration

Results - basic reporting

Publication summary

2003 design and rationale at
2005 recruitment analysis at
2009 results in

Publication citations

  1. Results

    Jolly K, Lip GY, Taylor RS, Raftery J, Mant J, Lane D, Greenfield S, Stevens A, The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation study (BRUM): a randomised controlled trial comparing home-based with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation., Heart, 2009, 95, 1, 36-42, doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.127209.

  2. Jolly K, Lip GY, Sandercock J, Greenfield SM, Raftery JP, Mant J, Taylor R, Lane D, Lee KW, Stevens AJ, Home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction or revascularisation: design and rationale of the Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM): a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN72884263]., BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2003, 3, 10, doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-3-10.

  3. Jolly K, Lip GY, Taylor RS, Mant JW, Lane DA, Lee KW, Stevens AJ, , Recruitment of ethnic minority patients to a cardiac rehabilitation trial: the Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation (BRUM) study [ISRCTN72884263]., BMC Med Res Methodol, 2005, 5, 18, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-18.

Additional files

Editorial Notes