Job-simulated phase II cardiac rehabilitation training: Part B. Effects of training

Part A of the paper dealt with the overall comparison between the job-simulated phase II CR training program and a conventional phase II CR training program (control). This is part B of the two-part paper and reports on the effects of job-simulated phase II CR physical training program on job-relate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of industrial ergonomics 1999-01, Vol.24 (5), p.531-543
Main Authors: Mital, A, Shrey, D.E, Govindaraju, M, Broderick, T.M, Colon-Brown, K, Gustin, B.W
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cardiac rehabilitation
Cardiology
Computer simulation
Dexterity
Flexibility
Job analysis
Job simulation
Occupational diseases
Patient rehabilitation
Performance measures
Physiology
Return to work
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Part A of the paper dealt with the overall comparison between the job-simulated phase II CR training program and a conventional phase II CR training program (control). This is part B of the two-part paper and reports on the effects of job-simulated phase II CR physical training program on job-related physical capabilities. Fifteen male and two female coronary heart disease (CHD) survivors (angioplasty and bypass patients) participated in the field study. These participants underwent training activities that simulated performance of physical work elements. Three different categories of activities were included: flexibility activities, dexterity activities, and strength oriented upper and whole body activities. A number of response measures (dynamic strength, its endurance (as indicated by number of cycles performed, time, heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure), isokinetic strength (at five different speeds), time taken to complete various dexterity tests (Purdue pegboard test, O'Connor tweezer test, Pennsylvania bimanual test, and arm and shoulder hand tool set test), and angles achieved by various body parts (spine, neck, shoulder, knee, ankle, and wrist)) were recorded prior to training and after each set of six training sessions. A MANOVA was conducted to analyze the training effect for each dependent variable; training time (before beginning training and after each of the three sets of six training sessions) was the repeated measure. The results indicated that training had a very significant effect on most response measures ( p
ISSN:0169-8141
1872-8219
DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00063-8