Key result
Adjunctive use of a mobile technology application was associated with a higher number of attended cardiac rehabilitation sessions compared to standard care (mean 28 vs 22; RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.04-1.32).
Why the study?
Adherence to cardiac rehabilitation remains suboptimal despite its established effectiveness, prompting investigation into whether mobile technology could improve adherence and other outcomes.
Does adjunctive use of a mobile technology application improve adherence to cardiac rehabilitation in enrolled patients?
Cohort (n=830)
No
Does adjunctive use of a mobile technology application improve adherence to cardiac rehabilitation in enrolled patients?
Relative Risk: 1.17 (95% CI 1.04–1.32)
Absolute Event Rate: 28% vs 22%
p-value: p=0.009
Adjunctive use of a mobile technology application significantly improves session attendance and program completion rates in a racially diverse cardiac rehabilitation population.
May support mobile app integration in cardiac rehab programs; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background Despite its established effectiveness, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation remains suboptimal. The purpose of our study is to examine whether mobile technology improves adherence to cardiac rehabilitation and other outcomes. Methods and Results We identified all enrollees of the cardiac rehabilitation program at Boston Medical Center from 2016 to 2019 (n=830). Some enrollees used a mobile technology application that provided a customized list of educational content in a progressive manner, used the patient’s smartphone accelerometer to provide daily step counts, and served as a 2‐way messaging system between the patient and program staff. Adherence to cardiac rehabilitation was defined as the number of attended sessions and completion of the program. Enrollees had a mean age of 59 years; 32% were women, and 42% were Black. Using 3:1 propensity matching for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, smoking status, transportation time, diagnosis, and baseline depression survey score, we evaluated change in exercise capacity, weight, functional capacity, and nutrition scores. Those in the mobile technology group (n=114) attended a higher number of prescribed sessions (mean 28 versus 22; relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04–1.32; P =0.009), were 1.8 times more likely to complete the cardiac rehabilitation program ( P =0.01), and had a slightly greater weight loss (pounds) following rehabilitation (−1.71; 95% CI, −0.30 to −3.11; P =0.02) as compared with those in the standard group (n=213); other outcomes were similar between the groups. Conclusions In a propensity‐matched, racially diverse population, we found that adjunctive use of mobile technology is significantly associated with improved adherence to cardiac rehabilitation and number of attended sessions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Imran et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiac rehabilitation (n=830). Mobile technology application vs. Standard group was evaluated on Adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (number of attended sessions) (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.32, p=0.009). Adjunctive use of a mobile technology application was associated with a higher number of attended cardiac rehabilitation sessions compared to standard care (mean 28 vs 22; RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.04-1.32).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: