Feasibility of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation: Results of TeleInterMed study

Abstract

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended as an important component of a comprehensive approach to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. Data have shown that HTCR was high and promising. (Cardiol J 2014; 21, 5: 539-546)

Cardiac Telerehabilitation - Current State and Clinical Perspectives

“…All successful cardiac telerehabilitation programs can be helpful for scientists and clinicians initiating or modifying their own programs. One of them conducted by Piotrowicz et al 6 showed that HTCR resulted in a significant improvement; moreover, neither deaths nor adverse events were observed. Generally patients accepted HTCR (percentage of non-adherent patients: 0.8).…”

“…5 Thus such programs are important basic or supplementary way of the cardiovascular diseases prevention and important component of a comprehensive approach to CVD. 6 Despite well established benefits of CR, many heart failure patients do not attend such programmes for a variety of reasons. Generally CR effects tend to decrease after the initial rehabilitation period.…”

Barriers to and Facilitators of Engagement With Remote Measurement Technology for Managing Health: Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Findings (Preprint)

“…Two studies obtained the maximum score of one on the MMAT [6,7], with the remaining studies scoring 0.75 (n = 13), 0.5 (n = 11), or 0.25 (n = 7). Higher ratings were prohibited for a range of reasons, including a lack of adequately reported information regarding researchers' influence on the qualitative findings and their generalisability, description of sampling method, and method of analysis.…”

“…The average numbers of interactions per week also varied between 3.5 [13], and 12 times per week [14]. The average percentage of people who wore the wearable device for the duration of the study ranged from 50-75% [15,16] and the percentage of people meeting a pre-specified threshold for adherence varied from 41.7-81.8% [7,9,12,17]. Although studies reported varying degrees of attrition [10, 13,18], dropout rate reporting was more frequent and ranged from 0-44% with a mean of 11.0% (SD = 11.4).…”

“…This caused difficulties with specific processes such as setting up resources [21], with two participants withdrawing due to difficulties in acquiring a consistent wireless service [14]. Other problems with accessibility included poor telephone network coverage, which caused delays in receiving text messages [15] and, in one case, resulted in 39% of participants missing training sessions [7].…”