Digital health intervention in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Harbi AS 1 , Soh KL 1 , Yubbu PB 2 , Soh KG 3

Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences,, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, 43400, Malaysia
  • 2 Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences,, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, 43400, Malaysia
  • 3 Department of Sport Studies, Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, 43400, Malaysia
F1000Res, 2024;13:596.
PMID: 38984016 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.152315.1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be the foremost mortality internationally. Cardiac rehabilitation has proven as an effective program in reducing CVD burden. Participation in cardiac rehabilitation programs is very low. Digital health intervention emerged as an alternative method to deliver Cardiac rehabilitation. This review aimed to investigate the impact of digital health intervention on the outcomes of interest.

METHODS: the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library have been searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials that examine the impact of digital health intervention on blood pressure, body mass index, lipid profile, blood glucose, Six-Minute Walk Test, and peak oxygen consumption. filters were set to include studies published in English between 2000-2023.

RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in this review. Six-Minute Walk Test (MD = 16.70; 95% CI: 6.00 to 27.39, p = 0.000) and maximal oxygen consumption (SMD = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.45, p = 0.004) significantly improved following digital health intervention, after employing the sensitivity analysis significant improvement was observed in systolic (MD = -2.54; 95% CI: -4.98 to -0.11, p = 0.04) and diastolic blood pressure (SMD = -2.0182; 95% CI: -3.9436 to -0.0928, p = 0.04) favoring experimental groups. Subgroup analysis revealed significant improvement in quality of life after three months of follow-up (SMD = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.31, p = 0.00), no significant differences have been observed in body mass index, lipid profile, and blood glucose.

CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the significant impact of digital vs CBCR or usual care on physical capacity, blood pressure, and quality of life. Despite the non-statistically significant differences in body mass index and lipid profile, the comparable effect between the two methods suggests the superiority of digital over CBCR or usual care due to its convenient nature, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications