Barriers to and Facilitators of Technology in Cardiac Rehabilitation and Self-Management: Systematic Qualitative Grounded Theory Review

Abstract

The following pages provide the PRISMA 2009 Checklist for the paper. We note that the PRISMA website 1 states that it was designed with a focus on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials. The website also states that it can be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, and hence we have used it in this paper. However, the PRISMA focus on reviews of randomized trials means there are important clarification to note in regard to specific questions. Question 2: Part of question 2 refers to the registration of systematic reviews. We chose not to register the review in this paper as it is qualitative in nature and makes use of grounded theory methods. Question 5: This question again makes reference to advance registration of the study and its protocol. As noted above we did not register the study and protocol in a archival format. Question 13: This question focuses on quantitative measure and as such is not relevant to our qualitative review. Question 14: This question focuses on reviews where data synthesis is done using quantitative / statistical methods. We have answered 'Yes' to this question as our synthesis methods are described in the paper (see page 6). However we note that the methods applied are qualitative rather than quantitative.

Tailoring eHealth design to support the self-care needs of patients with cardiovascular diseases: a vignette survey experiment

“…self-set goals) have been recognised as necessary components that can help achieve health outcomes (Lentferink, Oldenhuis, and de Groot 2017). Likewise, literature with a clinical perspective argues that these types of components could also help promote the underlying principle that there must be a shared responsibility between health care providers and patients (Tadas and Coyle 2020;Riegel, Jaarsma, and Lee 2019). In the present study, respondents with clinical expertise often emphasised the important balance between giving the patient the initiative while at the same time not leaving them completely alone in the process.…”

“…In a similar way, it is plausible that different strategies could also have varying effects on the distinct processes of self-care that are proposed by the Middle-Range Theory of Self-Care of Chronic Illness (e.g. the same factor could act as a facilitator or a barrier, depending on the person, the need, and the context) (Harvey, Dopson, and McManus 2015;Tadas and Coyle 2020). Moreover, research has suggested that persuasive design strategies such as goal-setting, suggestions, or reminders are key components of eHealth interventions that aim to promote healthy lifestyles (Lentferink, Oldenhuis, and de Groot 2017).…”

“…A key cornerstone of treatment that can lessen such burden is to support the self-care goals and behaviours of patients (Riegel, Moser, and Buck 2017). To effectively support self-care, a strategy must consider the distinct needs of the individual, their most relevant goals, and key behaviours (Harvey, Dopson, and McManus 2015;Tadas and Coyle 2020). For example, the needs of a patient with a stable condition might center on the goal of improving general health and well-being to minimise risks, which can be achieved through the performance of healthy behaviours such as going for a short walk every morning.…”

Transitions in Technology-Mediated Cardiac Rehabilitation and Self-management: Qualitative Study Using the Theoretical Domains Framework

“…Recent systematic reviews have highlighted the potential of digital health interventions to support rehabilitation and subsequent self-management of cardiovascular conditions [ 9 - 11 ]. However, significant shortcomings were identified.…”

“…Piette et al [ 10 ] highlighted the need for future interventions to incorporate advances in behavioral theories and artificial intelligence in order to be more effective and adaptive to the changing needs of patients. Despite recent calls for technology that supports personalization and focuses on user needs, Tadas et al [ 11 ] found that, with notable exceptions, prior research in the cardiovascular domain has made limited use of user-centered approaches. This is consistent with the findings of Siegers et al [ 12 ], who also reported that most developers of digital interventions for cardiac self-management did not engage with the direct experiences of patients, such as those who have attended rehabilitation programs.…”