MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409530504 · doi:10.2196/62986

Design Requirements for Cardiac Telerehabilitation Technologies Supporting Athlete Values: Qualitative Interview Study

2025· article· en· W4409530504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Irina Bianca Șerban, Lonneke Fruytier, Steven Houben, Sara Colombo, Hareld Kemps, Aarnout Brombacher

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersITEA
KeywordsAthletesTelerehabilitationPsychological interventionCard sortingRehabilitationCoronary artery diseaseMedicineHealth carePhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTelemedicineTask (project management)NursingEngineeringCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) interventions can provide accessible and affordable remote rehabilitation services. However, as cardiac rehabilitation (CR) primarily targets inactive patients, little is known about the experiences with CR of highly active patients (ie, recreational athletes or, simply, athletes) with established coronary artery disease. Consequently, existing CTR interventions do not address the specific needs of the athletic subpopulation. Understanding the needs and values of athletes is crucial for designing meaningful CTR interventions that enhance user acceptance and engagement, thereby facilitating effective rehabilitation for this patient subgroup. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform the design of technologies that facilitate CTR for athletes. We intended to identify athletes' values related to CR, including health and sports tracking, as well as high-level requirements for technologies that can facilitate the CTR of athletes according to the identified values. METHODS: We used value-sensitive design with a human-centric design approach to elicit design requirements for CTR that can serve athletes with established coronary artery disease. To identify athletes' values, we conducted 25 value-oriented semistructured interviews with 15 athletic patients and 10 health care professionals involved in CR programs. In a second phase, we conducted 6 card-sorting focus group sessions with 13 patients and 7 health care professionals to identify desired CTR features. Finally, we derived high-level CTR technology requirements connected to the athletes' needs and values. RESULTS: We defined 12 athlete values divided into 3 categories: body centric, care centric, and data and technology centric. We clustered findings from the card-sorting activity into CTR technology requirements, such as remotely monitored sport-specific training and training data representations next to clinical limitations, and paired them with corresponding values. CONCLUSIONS: Athletes have distinct values and health goals in CR compared to general populations targeted by CTR interventions. Designing patient-centric CTR interventions that address these needs is crucial to support optimal recovery, safe return to sports, and adherence to CTR technologies in the home environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207