ArticleCJC open2025
"Is This Thing On?: Measuring Technology Self-Efficacy Influence on Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients' Adoption of a Virtual Care Platform.
Article in CJC open, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of virtual cardiac rehabilitation (vCR) delivery models. Understanding patient-level factors, such as technology self-efficacy (SE), is crucial for enhancing vCR adoption and ensuring its long-term sustainability. However, no validated tool exists to assess technology SE specifically for vCR. This paper outlines the initial phase of a quality-improvement project focused on developing a survey to assess technology SE among patients with access to videoconferencing (VC) technology in a vCR program. Methods: A 30-item technology SE survey was developed by adapting items from validated instruments to prospectively assess technology SE in vCR and was tested for internal consistency. Results: Of the 413 eligible patients, 99 completed the technology SE survey (24% response rate); 86 attended vCR using VC, and 13 did not use VC. The VC attendees were significantly younger than the non-VC attendees (aged 64.1 vs 72.5 years, Conclusions: This quality-improvement initiative highlights disparities in technology SE that may impact participation in vCR programs. Addressing these gaps through targeted screening and interventions could enhance vCR accessibility and equity. Future research should focus on validating SE tools modified for vCR settings and exploring associated interventions to improve technology SE and patient vCR adoption.
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.