ArticleResearch square2023
User-centered design of a telehealth-enhanced hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program as hospital quality improvement.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Innovative program designs and strategies are needed to support the widespread uptake of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs in the post-COVID19 era. We combined user-centered design (UCD) and implementation science (ImS) principles to design a novel telehealth-enhanced hybrid (home and clinic-based) CR (THCR) program. Methods As part of a New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH) quality improvement initiative (March 2020-February 2022), we designed a THCR program using an iterative 3 step UCD process informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to: 1) identify user and contextual barriers to CR uptake (stakeholder interviews), 2) design an intervention prototype (design workshops and journey mapping), and 3) refine the prototype (usability testing). The process was optimized for usability and implementation outcomes. Results Step 1: Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (n = 9) at 3 geographically diverse academic medical centers revealed behavioral (e.g., self-efficacy, knowledge) and contextual (e.g., social distancing guidelines, physical space, staffing, reimbursement) barriers to uptake. Step 2: Design workshops (n = 20) and journey-mapping sessions (n = 3) with multi-disciplinary NYPH stakeholders (e.g., digital health team, CR clinicians, creative director) yielded a THCR prototype that leveraged NYPH's investment in their remote patient monitoring (RPM) platform to optimize feasibility of home-based CR sessions. Step 3: Usability testing with CR clinicians (n = 2) administering and CR patients (n = 3) participating in home-based sessions revealed usability challenges (e.g., RPM devices/exercise equipment usability; Wi-Fi/Bluetooth connectivity/syncing; patient safety/knowledge and protocol flexibility). Design workshops (n = 24) and journey-mapping sessions (n = 3) yielded design solutions (e.g., onboarding sessions, safety surveys, fully supervised remote sessions) and a refined THCR prototype. Conclusion Combining UCD and ImS methods while engaging multi-disciplinary stakeholders in an iterative process yielded a theory-informed telehealth-enhanced hybrid CR program targeting user and contextual barriers to real-world CR implementation. We provide a detailed summary of the process, and guidance for incorporating UCD and ImS methods in early-stage intervention development. THCR may shrink the evidence-to-practice gap in CR implementation. A future hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial will determine its feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.