Use of Smartphone Apps for Improving Physical Function Capacity in Cardiac Patient Rehabilitation: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based approach for preventing secondary cardiac events. Smartphone apps are starting to be used in CR to give patients real-time feedback on their health, connect them remotely with their medical team, and allow them to perform their rehabilitation at home. The use of smartphone apps is becoming omnipresent and has real potential in impacting patients in need of CR. Objective This paper provides critical examinations and summaries of existing research studies with an in-depth analysis of not only the individual studies but also the larger patterns that have emerged with smartphone apps in CR as well as their significance for practice change. Methods A systematic review was conducted through broad database searches that focused on evaluating randomized controlled trials, in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) expectations. A total of 43 articles were evaluated, and 6 were chosen for this review. The dates of the articles ranged from 2014-2020, and the studies focused on the population of cardiac outpatients who needed CR after suffering a cardiac event, with interventions using a smartphone that incorporated the CR standards of the American Heart Association. The outcomes measured were directed at focusing on improved exercise function capacity, valued at a significance level of P<.05, for improved 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and peak oxygen uptake (PVO2) results. Results In the evaluated articles, the results were inconsistent for significant positive effects of CR smartphone apps on cardiac patients’ physical function capacity in terms of the 6MWT and PVO2 when using a smartphone app to aid in CR. Conclusions Because evidence in the literature suggests nonhomogeneous results for successful use of smartphone apps in CR, it is crucial to investigate the potential reasons for this inconsistency. An important observation from this systematic review is that smartphone apps used in CR have better clinical outcomes related to physical function capacity if the app automatically records information or provides real-time feedback to participants about their progress, compared to apps that only educate and encourage use while requiring the participant to manually log their CR activities. Additional factors to consider during these studies include the starting health of the patients, the sample sizes, and the specific components of CR that the smartphone apps are using. Overall, more clinical trials are needed that implement smartphone apps with these factors in mind, while placing stronger emphasis on using biosensing capabilities that can automatically log results and send them to providers on a real-time dashboard.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".