Key result
Virtual cardiac rehabilitation shows mixed efficacy for improving functional capacity over conventional methods.
Why the study?
Mobile technologies offer an opportunity to improve the quality and utilization of cardiac rehabilitation, prompting a need to summarize the current use of virtual solutions supporting home-based programs.
Do virtual healthcare solutions improve functional capacity, adherence, physical activity, and quality of life in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation compared to conventional rehabilitation?
Population
113 eligible studies evaluating virtual cardiac rehabilitation
Comparison
Virtual cardiac rehabilitation solutions vs conventional rehabilitation or baseline
Design
Literature review adapting Cochrane Handbook methodology
Authors
Loading...
Mixed functional capacity results warrant cautious virtual cardiac rehabilitation adoption; leaves open standardized trials on adherence and long-term outcomes.
Systematic Review (n=113)
Do virtual healthcare solutions improve functional capacity, adherence, physical activity, and quality of life in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation compared to conventional rehabilitation?
Virtual cardiac rehabilitation shows mixed efficacy compared to conventional rehabilitation but offers potential for increased user adherence and longer-term patient engagement.
Lee et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in Cardiac rehabilitation (n=113). Virtual cardiac rehabilitation vs. Conventional rehabilitation was evaluated on Functional capacity, user adherence/compliance, physical activity, and quality of life. Virtual cardiac rehabilitation solutions, evaluated across 113 studies, provided mixed efficacy in improving functional capacity (the primary outcome in 32.7% of studies) over conventional methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: