Key result
The eHealth intervention was feasible with high adherence and usability but did not significantly improve feelings of certainty and guidance compared to the control group (p=0.51).
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation demonstrates lower effectiveness and higher dropout rates among patients with a low socioeconomic position compared to those with a high socioeconomic position.
Does a tailored eHealth intervention improve adherence, acceptance, and feelings of certainty and guidance in patients with a low socioeconomic position during the waiting period preceding cardiac rehabilitation?
RCT (n=41)
Randomized
No
Does a tailored eHealth intervention improve adherence, acceptance, and feelings of certainty and guidance in patients with a low socioeconomic position during the waiting period preceding cardiac rehabilitation?
A tailored eHealth application for patients with a low socioeconomic position awaiting cardiac rehabilitation is highly feasible and acceptable, though it did not statistically improve standardized measures of certainty and guidance.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
eHealth feasible with high adherence in low-SEP patients pre-rehab; leaves open efficacy on certainty/guidance and needs outcome-focused trials.
Aims: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) shows lower effectiveness and higher dropouts among people with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) compared to those with a high SEP. This study evaluated an eHealth intervention aimed at supporting patients with a low SEP during their waiting period preceding CR. Methods and results: Participants with a low SEP in their waiting period before CR were randomized into an intervention group, receiving guidance videos, patient narratives, and practical tips, or into a control group. We evaluated adherence (usage metrics), acceptance (modified Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use questionnaire), and changes in feelings of certainty and guidance between the waiting period's start and end. Semi-structured interviews provided complementary insights. The study involved 41 participants [median interquartile range (IQR) age 62 (14) years; 33 males], with 21 participants allocated to the intervention group, using the eHealth intervention for a median (IQR) duration of 16 (10) days, using it on a median (IQR) of 100% (25) of these days, and viewing 88% of the available messages. Key adherence themes were daily routine compatibility and curiosity. Acceptance rates were 86% for usability, 67% for satisfaction, and 43% for usefulness. No significant effects on certainty and guidance were observed, but qualitative data suggested that the intervention helped to inform and set expectations. Conclusion: The study found the eHealth intervention feasible for cardiac patients with a low SEP, with good adherence, usability, and satisfaction. However, it showed no effect on feelings of certainty and guidance. Through further optimization of its content, the intervention holds promise to improve emotional resilience during the waiting period. Registration: This trial is registered as follows: 'Evaluation of a Preparatory eHealth Intervention to Support Cardiac Patients During Their Waiting Period (PReCARE)' at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05698121, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05698121).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faber et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Cardiac patients with a low socioeconomic position waiting for cardiac rehabilitation (n=41). CapriXpress eHealth intervention vs. Control group (standard care/no eHealth intervention) was evaluated on Change in feelings of certainty and guidance (Certainty and Guidance Questionnaire [CGQ] score) between start and end of waiting period (p=0.51). The eHealth intervention was feasible with high adherence and usability but did not significantly improve feelings of certainty and guidance compared to the control group (p=0.51).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: