Randomized controlled trial improved self-management and health-related quality of life in CAD patients, indicating wider access to care.
The global shortage of healthcare professionals creates challenges in managing chronic diseases. This study evaluated a remotely delivered, theory-based self-care support intervention, "Internet-based CArdiac Rehabilitation Enhancement (i-CARE)", delivered through a smartphone application to enhance self-management in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In this assessor-blinded, two-arm randomized controlled trial conducted at two regional hospitals in Hong Kong, community-dwelling adults with angiographically confirmed CAD were randomly assigned (1:1) to standard care or the i-CARE intervention. i-CARE included personalized risk assessment, skill-building, and app-based support to improve self-care behaviors. The primary outcome was change in CAD self-care behaviors, secondary outcomes were self-reported health status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), physiological and biomarkers. Of 294 participants randomized (n=147 per group), the i-CARE group showed significant greater improvements in self-care maintenance (ꞵ=4.055, 95%CI 1.420-6.691, p=0.003) and self-care confidence (ꞵ=5.609, 95%CI 1.089-10.129, p=0.015) at 3 months, sustained at 6 months. For secondary outcomes, the intervention also resulted in significant reductions in systolic (ꞵ=-3.725, 95%CI -7.322- -0.128, p=0.042) and diastolic (ꞵ= -2.153, 95%CI -4.228--0.079, p=0.042) blood pressure and improvements in HRQoL at 3 months (ꞵ=0.208, 95%CI 0.073-0.343, p=0.003), with persistent benefits for diastolic blood pressure and HRQoL sustained at 6 months. No significant differences were observed for cardiac-specific health status, blood glucose, lipid profile, or waist-to-height ratio. Remotely delivered i-CARE intervention effectively promote self-care among CAD patients and may help address critical healthcare workforce shortages, while also conferring secondary benefits in blood pressure and HRQoL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: