Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-6
The effectiveness of interactive cardiac rehabilitation web applications versus usual care on programme completion in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Although available evidence demonstrates positive clinical outcomes for patients attending and completing cardiac rehabilitation, the effectiveness of interactive cardiac rehabilitation web applications on programme completion has not been systematically examined.
Methods
This JBI systematic review of effects included studies measuring effectiveness of interactive cardiac rehabilitation web applications compared to telephone, and centre-based programmes. Outcome data were pooled under programme completion and clinical outcomes (body mass index, low-density lipoproteins, and blood pressure). Databases including MEDLINE (via Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus (via Elsevier) and CINAHL (via EBSCO) published in English were searched. Articles were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers for inclusion, and the JBI critical appraisal tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool were applied to appraise and assess the certainty of the findings of the included studies. A meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes used random effects models.
Results
In total, nine studies involving 1175 participants who participated in web-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care were identified. The mean critical appraisal tool score was 76 (standard deviation: 9.7) with all (100%) studies scoring >69%, and the certainty of evidence low. Web-based programmes were 43% more likely to be completed than usual care (risk ratio: 1.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.96, 2.13) There was no difference between groups for clinical outcomes.
Discussion
Despite the relatively small number of studies, high heterogeneity and the limited outcome measures, the results appeared to favour web-based cardiac rehabilitation with regard to programme completion.
RothGAMensahGAJohnsonCO, et al.Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990-2019: Update from the GBD 2019 study. J Am Coll Cardiol2020; 76: 2982–3021.
4.
National Heart Foundation of Australia. Recommended framework for cardiac rehabilitation. 2004.
5.
AbreuAFrederixIDendaleP, et al.Standardization and quality improvement of secondary prevention through cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes in Europe: The avenue towards EAPC accreditation programme: A position statement of the secondary prevention and rehabilitation section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). Eur J Prev Cardiol2021; 28: 496–509.
6.
GraceSLWarburtonDRStoneJA, et al.International charter on cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation: A call for action. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev2013; 33: 128–131.
7.
AndersonLTaylorRS. Cardiac rehabilitation for people with heart disease: An overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014: CD011273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011273.pub2.
8.
AstleyCMChewDPKeechW, et al.The impact of cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs on 12-month clinical outcomes: A linked data analysis. Heart Lung Circ2020; 29: 475–482.
9.
DalalHMDohertyPTaylorRS. Cardiac rehabilitation. Br Med J2015; 351: h5000.
10.
NeubeckLFFreedmanSBClarkAM, et al.Participating in cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative data. Eur J Prev Cardiol2012; 19: 494–503.
11.
HamiltonSMillsBMcRaeS, et al.Evidence to service gap: cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in rural and remote Western Australia. BMC Health Serv Res2018; 18: 64.
CrossSHMehraMRBhattDL, et al.Rural-urban differences in cardiovascular mortality in the US, 1999-2017. JAMA2020; 323: 1852–1854.
14.
ChongMSSitJWHKarthikesuK, et al.Effectiveness of technology-assisted cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud2021; 124: 104087.
15.
XuLLiFZhouC, et al.The effect of mobile applications for improving adherence in cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord2019; 19: 166. Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review.
16.
WongvibulsinSHabeosEEHuynhPP, et al.Digital health interventions for cardiac rehabilitation: Systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res2021; 23: e18773.
17.
Turan KavradimSÖzerZBozİ. Effectiveness of telehealth interventions as a part of secondary prevention in coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Caring Sci2020; 34: 585–603.
18.
JinKKhonsariSGallagherR, et al.Telehealth interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs2019; 18: 260–271.
19.
AndersonLSharpGANortonRJ, et al.Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2017; 2017: CD007130–CD007130.
20.
RamachandranHJJiangYTamWWS, et al.Effectiveness of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation as an alternative to Phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation of coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol2022; 29: 1017–1043. Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't.
DalalHMDohertyPMcDonaghST, et al.Virtual and in-person cardiac rehabilitation. Br Med J2021; 373: n1270.
23.
StefanakisMBatalikLAntoniouV, et al.Safety of home-based cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review. Heart Lung2022; 55: 117–126.
24.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; 372: 71.
25.
BarkerTHStoneJCSearsK, et al.The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid Synth2023; 21: 494–506.
26.
AntypasKWangbergSC. An Internet- and mobile-based tailored intervention to enhance maintenance of physical activity after cardiac rehabilitation: short-term results of a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2014; 16: e77. Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3132.
27.
Houchen-WolloffLGardinerNDeviR, et al.Web-based cardiac REhabilitatioN alternative for those declining or dropping out of conventional rehabilitation: results of the WREN feasibility randomised controlled trial. Open Heart2018; 5: e000860.
28.
YudiMClarkDTsangD, et al.SMARTphone-based, early cardiac REHABilitation in patients with acute coronary syndromes [SMART-REHAB trial]: A randomised controlled trial. Heart Lung Circ2017; 26: S349–S349.
29.
VarnfieldMKarunanithiMLeeCK, et al.Smartphone-based home care model improved use of cardiac rehabilitation in postmyocardial infarction patients: results from a randomised controlled trial. Heart (British Cardiac Society)2014; 100: 1770–1779. Comparative Study; Journal Article; Multicenter Study; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-305783.
30.
RosarioMBDLovellNHFildesJ, et al.Evaluation of an mHealth-based adjunct to outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform2018; 22: 1938–1948. Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't..
31.
KamelHHafezMSBastawyI. Telemedicine improves the short-term medical care of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Front Cardiovasc Med2021; 8: 693731.
32.
IndraratnaPBiswasUMcVeighJ, et al.Teleclinical care: A randomised control trial of a smartphone-based model of care for patients with heart failure or acute coronary syndrome. Heart Lung Circ2021; 30: S101.
33.
AntypasKWangbergSC. Combining users’ needs with health behavior models in designing an internet- and mobile-based intervention for physical activity in cardiac rehabilitation. JMIR Res Protoc2014; 3: e4.
34.
Dale LeilaPWhittakerRYannanJ, et al.Text message and Internet support for coronary heart disease self-management: Results from the Text4Heart randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2015; 17: e237–e211.
35.
IndraratnaPBiswasUMcVeighJ, et al.A smartphone-based model of care to support patients with cardiac disease transitioning from hospital to the community (TeleClinical care): Pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth2022; 10: e32554.
36.
YudiMBClarkDJTsangD, et al.SMARTphone-based, early cardiac REHABilitation in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A randomized controlled trial. Coron Artery Dis2021; 32: 432–440.
37.
DaleLPWhittakerRJiangY, et al.Text message and internet support for coronary heart disease self-management: Results from the text4heart randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2015; 17: 1–12.
38.
Ögmundsdóttir MichelsenHSjölinIBäckM, et al.Effect of a lifestyle-focused web-based application on risk factor management in patients who have had a myocardial infarction: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2022; 24: e25224.
39.
BeattyALBeckieTMDodsonJ, et al.A new era in cardiac rehabilitation delivery: Research gaps, questions, strategies, and priorities. Circulation2023; 147: 254–266.
40.
GallagherRThomasEAstleyC, et al.Cardiac rehabilitation quality in Australia: proposed national indicators for field-testing. Heart Lung Circ2020; 29: 1273–1277.
41.
National Cardiac Rehabilitation Quality Indicators: Data Dictionary.
42.
AktaaSGencerBArbeloE, et al.European society of cardiology quality indicators for cardiovascular disease prevention: Developed by the working group for cardiovascular disease prevention quality indicators in collaboration with the European Association for Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol2022; 29: 1060–1071.
43.
GraceSLTurk-AdawiKIContractorA, et al.Cardiac rehabilitation delivery model for low-resource settings. Heart2016; 102: 1449–1455.
44.
GlasgowREVogtTMBolesSM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health1999; 89: 1322–1327.
45.
RawstornJCGantNDireitoA, et al.Telehealth exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart2016; 102: 1183–1192.
46.
ChindhySTaubPRLavieCJ, et al.Current challenges in cardiac rehabilitation: strategies to overcome social factors and attendance barriers. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther2020; 18: 777–789.
47.
AmbrosettiMAbreuACorraU, et al.Secondary prevention through comprehensive cardiovascular rehabilitation: from knowledge to implementation. 2020 update. A position paper from the Secondary Prevention and Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol2021; 28: 460–495.
48.
BuckleyJPFurzeGDohertyP, et al.BACPR scientific statement: British standards and core components for cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation. Heart2013; 99: 1069–1071.
49.
TaylorRSDalalHMMcDonaghSTJ. The role of cardiac rehabilitation in improving cardiovascular outcomes. Nat Rev Cardiol2022; 19: 180–194.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
