The Use of Mobile Apps for Heart Failure Self-management: Systematic Review of Experimental and Qualitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure self-management is essential to avoid decompensation and readmissions. Mobile apps seem promising in supporting heart failure self-management, and there has been a rapid growth in publications in this area. However, to date, systematic reviews have mostly focused on remote monitoring interventions using nonapp types of mobile technologies to transmit data to health care providers, rarely focusing on supporting patient self-management of heart failure. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review the evidence on the effect of heart failure self-management apps on health outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and patient experience. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for studies examining interventions that comprised a mobile app targeting heart failure self-management and reported any health-related outcomes or patient-reported outcomes or perspectives published from 2008 to December 2021. The studies were independently screened. The risk of bias was appraised using Cochrane tools. We performed a narrative synthesis of the results. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42020158041). RESULTS: A total of 28 articles (randomized controlled trials [RCTs]: n=10, 36%), assessing 23 apps, and a total of 1397 participants were included. The most common app features were weight monitoring (19/23, 83%), symptom monitoring (18/23, 78%), and vital sign monitoring (15/23, 65%). Only 26% (6/23) of the apps provided all guideline-defined core components of heart failure self-management programs: education, symptom monitoring, medication support, and physical activity support. RCTs were small, involving altogether 717 participants, had ≤6 months of follow-up, and outcomes were predominantly self-reported. Approximately 20% (2/10) of RCTs reported a significant improvement in their primary outcomes: heart failure knowledge (P=.002) and self-care (P=.004). One of the RCTs found a significant reduction in readmissions (P=.02), and 20% (2/10) of RCTs reported higher unplanned clinic visits. Other experimental studies also found significant improvements in knowledge, self-care, and readmissions, among others. Less than half of the studies involved patients and clinicians in the design of apps. Engagement with the intervention was poorly reported, with only 11% (3/28) of studies quantifying app engagement metrics such as frequency of use over the study duration. The most desirable app features were automated self-monitoring and feedback, personalization, communication with clinicians, and data sharing and integration. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile apps may improve heart failure self-management; however, more robust evaluation studies are needed to analyze key end points for heart failure. On the basis of the results of this review, we provide a road map for future studies in this area.
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 | 0.049 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".