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.

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.