ArticleDigital health
Digital adaptation of the clinically effective REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for people living with heart failure (D:REACH-HF).
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.
- A Pragmatic Low-Cost Digital Support Pathway for GDMT Optimization in Ambulatory HFrEF: An Exploratory 6-Month Matched Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite strong recommendations for heart failure (HF) rehabilitation, participation (uptake and sustained engagement) remains low. Digital interventions may enhance participation and scalability, yet evidence for feasibility in real-world National Health Service settings remains limited. Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF), an effective home-based HF cardiac rehabilitation programme, is currently delivered using paper-based manuals with facilitator support. Objectives: To co-develop and assess the feasibility of a digitally adapted and enhanced version of REACH-HF (D:REACH-HF) with patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Methods: Following the Person-Based Approach, D:REACH-HF was iteratively co-developed with patients and caregivers in a public involvement group (stage 1) and through qualitative research (stages 2A and 2B). Usability and acceptability of content and design iterations were evaluated with patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals through think-aloud interviews ( Results: Participants rated D:REACH-HF highly (mean app quality score: 4.02/5), particularly for information credibility and functionality. Key benefits included flexibility, structured self-monitoring, and healthcare professional support. Remote access to patient data enabled more efficient consultations, allowing healthcare professionals to focus on tailoring their support to patient needs. Challenges included technical issues, digital literacy, and engagement variability. All patients requested continued access to the platform, highlighting perceived long-term value. Conclusion: The D:REACH-HF programme is acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. Moreover, as indicated by participant reports, it enables and achieves the same perceived benefits as the paper-based REACH-HF. However, evaluation of clinical and cost-effectiveness, implementation, and optimisation of D:REACH-HF for patients from under-researched and underserved communities is needed.
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.