Key result
Digital cardiovascular rehabilitation was rated as very or extremely beneficial by 6 of 12 previous patient participants, though staff identified barriers including device access and digital exclusion.
Why the study?
Patient perceptions and staff perspectives on digital cardiovascular rehabilitation, including implementation, communication, support, and workforce readiness, were not well understood within an NHS service.
Cross-Sectional (n=22)
No
Digital cardiovascular rehabilitation provides perceived benefits in flexibility and access, but requires continued professional support and targeted strategies to address digital exclusion.
Patient interest alongside barriers suggests hybrid cardiovascular rehabilitation models merit testing; leaves open scalable implementation strategies.
Objective To explore patient perceptions of digital cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) and staff perspectives on implementation, communication, support, and workforce readiness within a single National Health Service (NHS) cardiovascular rehabilitation service. Methods An exploratory convergent mixed-methods evaluation combined a five-item questionnaire sent to 30 previous digital CR participants with individual semi-structured interviews involving 10 multidisciplinary staff. Questionnaire data were summarised descriptively. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings were compared using a joint display to identify convergence, complementarity, and divergence. Results Twelve patients responded to the questionnaire, a response rate of 40%. Six of 12 rated digital CR as very or extremely beneficial, and six reported being very or extremely likely to participate consistently. Eight considered regular professional support very or extremely important. Staff described potential benefits relating to flexibility and access, alongside barriers involving device and internet access, language, digital confidence, workforce capability, and capacity. Integration of the findings suggested that patient interest in digital CR coexisted with a continuing need for professional and organisational support. However, the patient sample was limited to previous digital CR participants and may under-represent people experiencing digital exclusion. Conclusion The findings support further development and prospective evaluation of supported personalised digital and hybrid CR pathways. They do not establish comparative effectiveness, sustained engagement, clinical benefit, or cost-effectiveness. Practice implications Service development should combine accessible education, responsive communication, workforce preparation and evaluation of equitable access. Digital participation should be an informed choice supported by the rehabilitation team.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Glover et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular rehabilitation (n=22). Digital cardiovascular rehabilitation was evaluated on Patient perceptions of digital CR and staff perspectives on implementation, communication, support, and workforce readiness. Digital cardiovascular rehabilitation was rated as very or extremely beneficial by 6 of 12 previous patient participants, though staff identified barriers including device access and digital exclusion.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: