BackgroundEmerging evidence indicates mobile technology–based strategies may improve access to secondary prevention and reduce risk factors in cardiac patients. However, little is known about cardiac patients’ use of mobile technology, particularly for health reasons and whether the usage varies across patient demographics.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe cardiac patients’ use of mobile technology and to determine variations between age groups after adjusting for education, employment, and confidence with using mobile technology.MethodsCardiac patients eligible for attending cardiac rehabilitation were recruited from 9 hospital and community sites across metropolitan and rural settings in New South Wales, Australia. Participants completed a survey on the use of mobile technology devices, features used, confidence with using mobile technology, willingness and interest in learning, and health-related use.ResultsThe sample (N=282) had a mean age of 66.5 (standard deviation [SD] 10.6) years, 71.9% (203/282) were male, and 79.0% (223/282) lived in a metropolitan area. The most common diagnoses were percutaneous coronary intervention (33.3%, 94/282) and myocardial infarction (22.7%, 64/282). The majority (91.1%, 257/282) used at least one type of technology device, 70.9% (200/282) used mobile technology (mobile phone/tablet), and 31.9% (90/282) used all types. Technology was used by 54.6% (154/282) for health purposes, most often to access information on health conditions (41.4%, 117/282) and medications (34.8%, 98/282). Age had an important independent association with the use of mobile technology after adjusting for education, employment, and confidence. The youngest group (<56 years) was over 4 times more likely to use any mobile technology than the oldest (>69 years) age group (odds ratio [OR] 4.45, 95% CI 1.46-13.55), 5 times more likely to use mobile apps (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.01-12.44), and 3 times more likely to use technology for health-related reasons (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.34-8.18). Compared with the older group, the middle age group (56-69 years) was more than twice as likely to use any mobile technology (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.27-4.59) and mobile technology for health-related purposes (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.04-3.53). Participants who had completed high school were twice as likely to use mobile technology (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.45-4.70), mobile apps (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.09-3.84), and mobile technology for health-related reasons (OR 5.09, 95% CI 2.89-8.95) than those who had not completed high school. Associations were also present between participants living in metropolitan areas and mobile technology use (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.07-4.24) and employment and mobile app use (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.44-5.140).ConclusionsMobile technology offers an important opportunity to improve access to secondary prevention for cardiac patients, particularly when modified to suit subgroups. High levels of mobile technology use and health motivation need to be harnessed for secondary prevention.

No abstract

BackgroundTraditional in-person cardiac rehabilitation has substantial benefits for cardiac patients, which are offset by poor attendance. The rapid increase in social media use in older adults provides an opportunity to reach patients who are eligible for cardiac rehabilitation but unable to attend traditional face-to-face groups. However, there is a paucity of research on cardiac patients’ experiences and perspectives on using social media to support their health.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe cardiac rehabilitation patients’ experiences in using social media in general and their perspective on using social media, particularly Facebook, to support their cardiac health and secondary prevention efforts.MethodsA mixed-methods study was undertaken among cardiac rehabilitation patients in both urban and rural areas. First, this study included a survey (n=284) on social media use and capability. Second, six focus group interviews were conducted with current Facebook users (n=18) to elucidate Facebook experience and perspectives.ResultsSocial media use was low (28.0%, 79/282) but more common in participants who were under 70 years of age, employed, and had completed high school. Social media users accessed Web-based information on general health issues (65%, 51/79), medications (56%, 44/79), and heart health (43%, 34/79). Participants were motivated to invest time in using Facebook for “keeping in touch” with family and friends and to be informed by expert cardiac health professionals and fellow cardiac participants if given the opportunity. It appeared that participants who had a higher level of Facebook capability (understanding of features and the consequences of their use and efficiency in use) spent more time on Facebook and reported higher levels of “liking,” commenting, or sharing posts. Furthermore, higher Facebook capability appeared to increase a participants’ willingness to participate in a cardiac Facebook support group. More capable users were more receptive to the use of Facebook for cardiac rehabilitation and more likely to express interest in providing peer support. Recommended features for a cardiac rehabilitation Facebook group included a closed group, expert cardiac professional involvement, provision of cardiac health information, and ensuring trustworthiness of the group.ConclusionsCardiac health professionals have an opportunity to capitalize on cardiac patients’ motivations and social media, mostly Facebook, as well as the capability for supporting cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention. Participants’ favored purposeful time spent on Facebook and their cardiac health provides such a purpose for a Facebook intervention. The study results will inform the development of a Facebook intervention for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

No abstract

Aims Enforced suspension and reduction of in-person cardiac rehabilitation (CR) services during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions required rapid implementation of remote delivery methods, thus enabling a cohort comparison of in-person vs. remote-delivered CR participants. This study aimed to examine the health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes and patient experiences comparing these delivery modes. Methods and results Participants across four metropolitan CR sites receiving in-person (December 2019 to March 2020) or remote-delivered (April to October 2020) programmes were assessed for HRQL (Short Form-12) at CR entry and completion. A General Linear Model was used to adjust for baseline group differences and qualitative interviews to explore patient experiences. Participants (n = 194) had a mean age of 65.94 (SD 10.45) years, 80.9% males. Diagnoses included elective percutaneous coronary intervention (40.2%), myocardial infarction (33.5%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (26.3%). Remote-delivered CR wait times were shorter than in-person [median 14 (interquartile range, IQR 10–21) vs. 25 (IQR 16–38) days, P &lt; 0.001], but participation by ethnic minorities was lower (13.6% vs. 35.2%, P &lt; 0.001). Remote-delivered CR participants had equivalent benefits to in-person in all HRQL domains but more improvements than in-person in Mental Health, both domain [mean difference (MD) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28, 5.82] and composite (MD 2.37, 95% CI 0.15, 4.58). From qualitative interviews (n = 16), patients valued in-person CR for direct exercise supervision and group interactions, and remote-delivered for convenience and flexibility (negotiable contact times). Conclusion Remote-delivered CR implemented during COVID-19 had equivalent, sometimes better, HRQL outcomes than in-person, and shorter wait times. Participation by minority groups in remote-delivered modes are lower. Further research is needed to evaluate other patient outcomes.