Open Access

A systematic review of the effect of mobile health on cardiac rehabilitation among coronary heart disease patients


Cite

Figure 1

Search findings and process.
Search findings and process.

Figure 2

Bias risk assessments.
Bias risk assessments.

Characteristics of the included studies.

Author; countryStudy designMean age (years)Gender (male)Sample sizeDurationIG, CGLimitation
Blasco et al.18; SpainRCT61163n = 203 IG = 102 CG = 10112 monthsIG: telemedicine + lifestyle counseling + usual care CG: lifestyle counseling + usual care1. Patients were not blinded 2. Sample size was relatively small 3. Duration of follow-up was only 1 year
Park et al.19;RCT59.268n = 9030 daysIG1 : TM reminders + TM1. Sample size was small
USAIG1 = 30education2. Follow-up period was relatively
IG2 = 30IG2: TM educationshort (30 days)
CG = 30CG:no TM3. Study used self-reported and MEMS data collection, which have inherent limitations
Quilici et al.20;RCT64187n = 54630 daysIG: SMS + standard care CG: standard careSelf-reported data were used as a measuring method
France
Varnfield et al.13; AustraliaRCT55.582n = 1206 monthsIG: baseline to 6 weeks: health and exercise monitoring + delivery of motivational and educational materials via TM; 6 weeks to 6 months: patients were encouraged to maintain lifestyle changes CG: traditional, center-based CR1. Sample size was too small 2. A considerable number of patients dropped out 3. Study only focused on patients referred for CR after myocardial infarction and did not address all patients eligible for CR
Chow et al.14; AustraliaRCT58582n = 7106 monthsIG: four TMs per week for 6 months + usual care CG: usual care1. Study was conducted in a single large tertiary referral center hospital, and thus the results may not be generalizable
2. The study delivered the messages in English and excluded non-English-speaking patients
3. Some outcomes were measured using self-report questionnaire
4. No cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out
Pfaeffli DaleRCT59.5100n = 1236 monthsIG: daily SMS TMs + a supporting website +1. Outcome assessors were not blinded
et al.16; New Zealandusual care CG: usual care2. Primary outcome measure was self-reported, so recall bias is possible
3. Findings may not be transferable to other populations because the sample was predominantly New Zealand European
MartinRCT;5826n = 485 weeksIG: mHealth intervention1. Study had limited size and scope
et al.16;pilotwith tracking and texting2. Generalizability remains uncertain
USAtrialcomponents3. Study did not use human
CG: usual carecoaches as part of the intervention
Frederix et al.17; BelgiumRCT61114n = 1406 monthsIG: telerehabilitation program + conventional, center-based CR CG: conventional, center-based CRStudy had a generalizability problem

Intervention characteristics.Apps, applications; mHealth, mobile health; TM, text message.

Study; countrymHealth devicesInformationtransferCentralmonitoringcenterMonitoringintensityMonitoringpersonnelReal-timefeedbackTheory-basedFrequencyPatientfeedback
TM Apps Others
Blascoetal.18; SpainAutomaticN/ACardiologistN/AXN/AX
Park et al.19; USAAutomaticDailyPhysicianX74/30 days
Quilici et al.20; FranceAutomaticDailyN/AXXDaily
Varnfield et al.13; Australia√ √AutomaticDailyMentorsN/AN/AX
Chow et al.14; AustraliaAutomaticN/ACliniciansX4 per week
Pfaeffli Dale et al.16; NewZealandInternetAutomaticN/AResearchteam1 per dayX
Martin et al.16; USA√ √AutomaticN/AN/A3 times/day
Frederix et al.17; Belgium√ TelecoachingSemiautomaticN/AN/AXOnceweekly
eISSN:
2544-8994
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Medicine, Assistive Professions, Nursing