ArticleDigital health
mHealth intervention including text messaging and behaviour change techniques to support maintenance of physical activity after cardiac rehabilitation: A single-arm feasibility study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a mobile health-supported intervention in patients with cardiovascular diseases after completion of a cardiac rehabilitation programme. Methods: The feasibility study was performed in two hospitals and one municipality in Region Zealand, Denmark. Eligible participants were ≥18 years old, participated in a supervised cardiac rehabilitation programme, had access to a mobile phone, and could walk 3 m independently. Participants received a 12-week intervention utilizing behaviour change techniques, consisting of action planning, text messages, and phone support. Feasibility was assessed using pre-defined progression criteria, which included recruitment (≥75%), retention (≥80%), accelerometer data completeness (≥80%), coordinator (phone support) time (≤30 min), the response rate on patient-reported outcomes (≥90%), adherence (≥75% respond to ≥75% of messages), and acceptability (≥75%). The secondary outcome of objective physical activity was assessed with accelerometers. Results: Ten women and 30 men with cardiovascular diseases aged 63.5 (±9.8 SD) participated. The progression criteria for retention (90%), accelerometer data completeness (83%), coordinator time (9.9 min), adherence (83%), and acceptability (82%) were at acceptable levels, exceptions were progression criteria for recruitment (35%) being below acceptable levels for recruitment, and response rate on patient-reported outcomes (75%). High satisfaction (92.6%) with the intervention was found. All objectively measured physical activity levels remained unchanged from baseline to follow-up. No serious adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Conclusion: Mobile health-supported maintenance of physical activity after cardiac rehabilitation completion was feasible, safe, and acceptable. Yet, changes to improve recruitment and response rate are needed before conducting a large-scale effect evaluation.
Indexed as
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.