Why the study?
The use of mHealth apps for cardiovascular disease self-management is an increasing trend in patient-centered care, warranting a scoping review of their current status and challenges.
mHealth apps for CVD self-management primarily focus on arrhythmias and heart failure, providing reminders and recommendations, though patient reluctance and interoperability remain key challenges.
Guides mHealth prioritization for arrhythmia and heart failure self-management; extends current landscape mapping of digital CVD tools.
The use of mHealth apps for the self-management of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) is an increasing trend in patient-centered care. In this research, we conduct a scoping review of mHealth apps for CVD self-management within the period 2014 to 2021. Our review revolves around six main aspects of the current status of mHealth apps for CVD self-management: main CVDs managed, main app functionalities, disease stages managed, common approaches used for data extraction, analysis, management, common wearables used for CVD detection, monitoring and/or identification, and major challenges to overcome and future work remarks. Our review is based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting studies. Similarly, we adopted the PRISMA model for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Of the 442 works initially retrieved, the review comprised 38 primary studies. According to our results, the most common CVDs include arrhythmia (34%), heart failure (32%), and coronary heart disease (18%). Additionally, we found that the majority mHealth apps for CVD self-management can provide medical recommendations, medical appointments, reminders, and notifications for CVD monitoring. Main challenges in the use of mHealth apps for CVD self-management include overcoming patient reluctance to use the technology and achieving the interoperability of mHealth applications with other systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cruz-Ramos et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: