METHODS: This study was a two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight patients with coronary heart disease were randomly assigned to either the intervention group, receiving a 12-week technology-assisted intervention (n = 14), or the control group (n = 14), receiving usual care. Guided by the Health Belief Model, the intervention group received three center-based, supervised exercise training sessions, a fitness watch that served as a cue to action, six educational videos, and a weekly video call. The Self-efficacy for Exercise, exercise capacity, and Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II were assessed at baseline and immediately post-intervention (12-weeks).

RESULTS: Among the 28 patients who participated in this study, 85.7% completed the program, with a relatively low attrition rate (14.3%). The number of exercise training sessions accomplished by the participants in the intervention group was 51.27 ± 19.41 out of 60 sessions (85.5%) compared to 36.46 ± 23.05 (60.8%) in the control group. No cardiac adverse events or hospitalizations were reported throughout the study. Participants in the intervention group showed greater improvement in health-promoting behaviors when compared with the control group at 12 weeks. Within-group effects demonstrated improvement in exercise self-efficacy and exercise capacity among participants in the intervention group. A participant satisfaction survey conducted immediately post-intervention revealed that participants were "very satisfied" (23.1%) and "satisfied" (76.9%) with the technology-assisted intervention.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrated that technology-assisted intervention in a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program was feasible and suggested to be beneficial in improving exercise self-efficacy, exercise capacity, and health promoting behavior among patients with coronary heart disease. A full-scale study is needed to determine its effectiveness in the long term.

METHODS: Fifty-one participants performed the standard incremental treadmill exercise in a controlled laboratory setting with 12-lead ECG attached to the patient's body and wearing wrist-worn PPG trackers.

RESULTS: At each stage, the absolute percentage error of the PPG was within 10% of the standard acceptable range. Further analysis using a linear mixed model, which accounts for individual variations, revealed that PPG yielded the best performance at the baseline low-intensity exercise. As the stages progressed, heart rate validity decreased but was regained during recovery. The reliability was moderate to excellent.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to promote utilisation of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), participation among patients remains unsatisfactory. Little is known of patient decision to participate Phase II CR in a multi-ethnic country.

DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design.

METHODS: A consecutive sampling of 240 patients with coronary heart disease completed Coronary Artery Disease Education Questionnaire (CADE-Q) II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) and Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS).

RESULTS: Seventy per cent of patients (mean age 60.5 [SD = 10.6] years, 80.8% male) participated in phase II cardiac rehabilitation. Self-driving to cardiac rehabilitation centres, higher barriers in perceived need/health care and logistical factors were significantly associated with decreased odds of participation. Patients with more barriers from comorbidities/functional status, higher perceived social support from friends, and anxiety were more likely to participate. Chinese and Indians were less likely to participate when compared with Malays. More than 80% of patients used both home and mobile broadband internet, and 72.9% of them would accept the usage of technologies, especially educational videos, instant messenger, and video calls to partially replace the face-to-face, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation approach.

CONCLUSION: Several barriers were associated with non-participation in phase II cardiac rehabilitation. With the high perceived acceptance of technology usage in cardiac rehabilitation, home-based and hybrid cardiac rehabilitation may represent potential solutions to improve participation.

METHODS: We recruited patients with CRDs from two hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia to a home-PR programme. Following centre-based assessment, patients performed the exercises at home (five sessions/week for eight weeks (total 40 sessions)). We monitored the patients via weekly telephone calls and asked about adherence to the programme. We measured functional exercise capacity (6-Minutes Walking Test (6MWT) and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) (COPD Assessment Test (CAT)) at baseline and post-PR at nine weeks. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 purposively sampled participants to explore views and feedback on the home-PR programme. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.

RESULTS: We included 30 participants; two withdrew due to hospitalisation. Although 28 (93%) adhered to the full programme, only 11 (37%) attended the post-PR assessment because COVID-19 movement restrictions in Malaysia at that time prevented attendance at the centre. Four themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: involvement of family and caregivers, barriers to home-PR programme, interactions with peers and health care professionals, and programme enhancement.

METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.

RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.

CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.