Background: While questionnaires for assessing digital literacy exist, there is still a need for an easy-to-use and implementable questionnaire for assessing digital readiness in a broader sense. Additionally, learnability should be assessed to identify those patients who need additional training to use digital tools in a health care setting. Objective: The aim of the development of the Digital Health Readiness Questionnaire (DHRQ) was to create a short, usable, and freely accessible questionnaire that was designed from a clinical practice perspective. Methods: It was a prospective single-center survey study conducted in Jessa Hospital Hasselt in Belgium. The questionnaire was developed with a panel of field experts with questions in following 5 categories: digital usage, digital skills, digital literacy, digital health literacy, and digital learnability. All participants who were visiting the cardiology department as patients between February 1, 2022, and June 1, 2022, were eligible for participation. Cronbach α and confirmatory factor analysis were performed. Results: A total number of 315 participants were included in this survey study, of which 118 (37.5%) were female. The mean age of the participants was 62.6 (SD 15.1) years. Cronbach α analysis yielded a score of >.7 in all domains of the DHRQ, which indicates acceptable internal consistency. The fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis showed a reasonably good fit: standardized root-mean-square residual=0.065, root-mean-square error of approximation=0.098 (95% CI 0.09-0.106), Tucker-Lewis fit index=0.895, and comparative fit index=0.912. Conclusions: The DHRQ was developed as an easy-to-use, short questionnaire to assess the digital readiness of patients in a routine clinical setting. Initial validation demonstrates good internal consistency, and future research will be needed to externally validate the questionnaire. The DHRQ has the potential to be implemented as a useful tool to gain insight into the patients who are treated in a care pathway, tailor digital care pathways to different patient populations, and offer those with low digital readiness but high learnability appropriate education programs in order to let them take part in the digital pathways.

This systematic review aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation in comparison with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Evidence of cost-effectiveness is an important step towards implementation and reimbursement of telerehabilitation services. Electronic databases were searched for economic evaluations of telerehabilitation programmes. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were eligible for inclusion. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. A total of eight economic evaluations met the review inclusion criteria. The total sample size consisted of 751 patients ranging from a minimum of 46 patients to a maximum of 162 patients per study. Maximal follow-up was 5 years. A total of seven of the eight included studies demonstrated that telerehabilitation could lead to similar or lower long-term costs and are thus as cost-effective as traditional centre-based CR. There is significant heterogeneity between all included telerehabilitation interventions in duration, used technology, cost included and follow-up. Based on these small short duration trials, telerehabilitation may be as cost-effective as traditional centre-based approaches. However, more assessments of the value for money of telerehabilitation in larger and longer RCTs are needed both in high- as low-income countries.

Participation in comprehensive, multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation programmes as part of secondary prevention is recommended for patients with cardiovascular disease. However, recent data reveal that participation in cardiac rehabilitation is only around 30%–40% of eligible patients in Europe. Key barriers are practical barriers such as limitations in transport or scheduling issues. In recent years, home-based cardiac rehabilitation, delivered by telerehabilitation, has been suggested as an alternative or adjunct to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation to increase access, adherence, and participation rates. Multiple trials have demonstrated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation. Recently, the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has defined the presence of a cardiac telerehabilitation programme as one of the quality indicators for centres requesting accreditation. This document aims to provide a clear description of cardiac telerehabilitation and to provide minimal standards and core components to ensure the high quality of cardiac telerehabilitation in Europe.

Digital health is becoming more integrated in daily medical practice. In cardiology, patient care is already moving from the hospital to the patients’ homes, with large trials showing positive results in the field of telemonitoring via cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure via implantable devices, telemonitoring via home-based non-invasive sensors, and screening for atrial fibrillation via smartphone and smartwatch technology. Cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention are modalities that could greatly benefit from digital health integration, as current compliance and cardiac rehabilitation participation rates are low and optimisation is urgently required. This viewpoint offers a perspective on current use of digital health technologies in cardiac rehabilitation, heart failure and secondary prevention. Important barriers which need to be addressed for implementation in medical practice are discussed. To conclude, a future ideal digital tool and integrated healthcare system are envisioned. To overcome personal, technological, and legal barriers, technological development should happen in dialog with patients and caregivers. Aided by digital technology, a future could be realised in which we are able to offer high-quality, affordable, personalised healthcare in a patient-centred way.

Mobile health (mHealth) solutions have the potential to improve self-management and clinical care. For successful integration into routine clinical practice, healthcare professionals (HCPs) need accepted criteria helping the mHealth solutions’ selection, while patients require transparency to trust their use. Information about their evidence, safety and security may be hard to obtain and consensus is lacking on the level of required evidence. The new Medical Device Regulation is more stringent than its predecessor, yet its scope does not span all intended uses and several difficulties remain. The European Society of Cardiology Regulatory Affairs Committee set up a Task Force to explore existing assessment frameworks and clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. This knowledge was used to propose criteria with which HCPs could evaluate mHealth solutions spanning diagnostic support, therapeutics, remote follow-up and education, specifically for cardiac rhythm management, heart failure and preventive cardiology. While curated national libraries of health apps may be helpful, their requirements and rigour in initial and follow-up assessments may vary significantly. The recently developed CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2 health app quality assessment framework has the potential to address this issue and to become a widely used and efficient tool to help drive decision-making internationally. The Task Force would like to stress the importance of co-development of solutions with relevant stakeholders, and maintenance of health information in apps to ensure these remain evidence-based and consistent with best practice. Several general and domain-specific criteria are advised to assist HCPs in their assessment of clinical evidence to provide informed advice to patients about mHealth utilization.

Introduction: Despite proven benefits, patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) typically fail to participate in sufficient physical activity (PA). Effective interventions should be implemented to help patients maintain a healthy lifestyle and modify their present behavior. Gamification is the use of game design features (such as points, leaderboards, and progress bars) to improve motivation and engagement. It shows the potential for encouraging patients to engage in PA. However, empirical evidence on the efficacy of such interventions among patients with CHD is still emerging. Purpose: The aim of the study is to explore whether a smartphone-based gamification intervention could increase PA participation and other physical and psychological outcomes in CHD patients. Methods: Participants with CHD were randomly assigned to three groups (control group, individual group, and team group). The individual and team groups received gamified behavior intervention based on behavioral economics. The team group combined gamified intervention with social interaction. The intervention lasted for 12 weeks, and the follow-up was12 weeks. The primary outcomes included the change in daily steps and the proportion of patient days that step goals were achieved. The secondary outcomes included competence, autonomy, relatedness, and autonomous motivation. Results: For the individual group, smartphone-based gamification intervention significantly increased PA among CHD patients over the 12-week period (step count difference 988; 95% CI 259−1717; p < 0.01) and had a good maintenance effect during the follow-up period (step count difference 819; 95% CI 24−1613; p < 0.01). There are also significant differences in competence, autonomous motivation, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference in 12 weeks between the control group and individual group. For the team group, gamification intervention with collaboration didn't result in significant increases in PA. But patients in this group had a significant increase in competence, relatedness, and autonomous motivation. Conclusion: A smartphone-based gamification intervention was proven to be an effective way to increase motivation and PA engagement, with a substantial maintenance impact (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2100044879).