Key result
The HerBeat mHealth intervention improved 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 3 months (P=0.016), but the 38 m between-group difference compared to educational usual care was not significant.
Why the study?
The study evaluated the effects of the HerBeat mHealth intervention compared with educational usual care on exercise capacity and other patient-reported outcomes among women with coronary heart disease.
Does a behavior change mHealth intervention improve exercise capacity in women with coronary heart disease?
RCT (n=47)
Does a behavior change mHealth intervention improve exercise capacity in women with coronary heart disease?
Effect estimate: between-group difference of 38 m
p-value: p=not statistically significant
An mHealth intervention for women with coronary heart disease improved exercise capacity and psychosocial outcomes from baseline, though between-group differences were not statistically significant in this small study.
HerBeat did not significantly outperform usual care on 6MWT in women with CHD; larger RCTs needed to test efficacy.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a mobile health (mHealth) intervention, HerBeat, compared with educational usual care (E-UC) for improving exercise capacity (EC) and other patient-reported outcomes at 3 mo among women with coronary heart disease. METHODS: Women were randomized to the HerBeat group (n = 23), a behavior change mHealth intervention with a smartphone, smartwatch, and health coach or to the E-UC group (n = 24) who received a standardized cardiac rehabilitation workbook. The primary endpoint was EC measured with the 6-min walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular disease risk factors and psychosocial well-being. RESULTS: A total of 47 women (age 61.2 ± 9.1 yr) underwent randomization. The HerBeat group significantly improved on the 6MWT from baseline to 3 mo ( P = .016, d = .558) while the E-UC group did not ( P = .894, d =-0.030). The between-group difference of 38 m at 3 mo was not statistically significant. From baseline to 3 mo, the HerBeat group improved in anxiety ( P = .021), eating habits confidence ( P = .028), self-efficacy for managing chronic disease ( P = .001), diastolic blood pressure ( P = .03), general health perceptions ( P = .047), perceived bodily pain ( P = .02), and waist circumference ( P = .008) while the E-UC group showed no improvement on any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The mHealth intervention led to improvements in EC and several secondary outcomes from baseline to 3 mo while the E-UC intervention did not. A larger study is required to detect small differences between groups. The implementation and outcomes evaluation of the HerBeat intervention was feasible and acceptable with minimal attrition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beckie et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in coronary heart disease (n=47). HerBeat (mHealth intervention with smartphone, smartwatch, and health coach) vs. Educational usual care (E-UC) with a standardized cardiac rehabilitation workbook was evaluated on Exercise capacity measured with the 6-min walk test (6MWT) (between-group difference of 38 m, p=not statistically significant). The HerBeat mHealth intervention improved 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 3 months (P=0.016), but the 38 m between-group difference compared to educational usual care was not significant.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: