Cardiac telerehabilitation has demonstrated effectiveness for patient health outcomes, but uptake and implementation into practice have been limited and variable. While patient-level influences on uptake have been identified, little is known about provider- and system-level factors. To identify provider and system barriers and enablers to uptake and implementation of cardiac telerehabilitation. A systematic review was conducted, including a search of six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) from 2000 to March 2023. Two reviewers independently screened eligible articles. Study quality was evaluated according to study design by the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative data, the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS), and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for mixed methods. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Twenty eligible studies (total 1674 participants) were included. Perceived provider-level barriers included that cardiac telerehabilitation is resource intensive, inferior to centre-based delivery, and lack of staff preparation. Whereas provider-level enablers were having access to resources, adequate staff preparation, positive staff beliefs regarding cardiac telerehabilitation and positive team dynamics. System-level barriers related to unaligned policy, healthcare system and insurance structures, technology issues, lack of plans for implementation, and inadequate resources. System-level enablers included cost-effectiveness, technology availability, reliability, and adaptability, and adequate program development, implementation planning and leadership support. Barriers and enablers at both provider and system levels must be recognised and addressed at the local context to ensure better uptake of cardiac telerehabilitation programs.

Due to linguistic and cultural barriers, immigrants often have limited access to health information. Online health information is popular and accessible, but quality is questionable and its benefits dependent on an individual’s eHealth literacy. This study examined online health information-seeking behaviours, eHealth literacy and its predictors among first-generation Chinese immigrants. A sample of 356 Chinese immigrants living in Australia completed an anonymous paper-based survey, including sociodemographic, clinical data, English proficiency, health literacy, online health information-seeking behaviours, and eHealth literacy. Linear regression models analyzed predictive factors of eHealth literacy. Participants were aged mean 59.3 years, female (68.3%), 53.1% completed university, and their English proficiency was rated fair/poor by 75.1%. Participants perceived online health information as useful (61.6%) and important (56.2%) to their health. Health information accessed was often related to lifestyle (61.2%), health resources (44.9%), diseases (36.0%), and medications (30.9%). Inadequate health literacy and eHealth literacy occurred in 48.3% and 44.9%, respectively. Age, number of technological devices used, education, and health status were independently associated with eHealth literacy. While most Chinese immigrants used online health information, many had inadequate eHealth literacy. Healthcare authorities and providers should support older immigrants, those with lower education and poorer health, and those less engaged with technology in online health information use by providing culturally and linguistically appropriate information, directing immigrants to credible websites, and involving them in health material development processes.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to determine exercise self-efficacy improvements during cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and identify predictors of exercise self-efficacy change in CR participants. Methods: Patients with coronary heart disease at four metropolitan CR sites completed the Exercise Self-efficacy Scale at entry and completion. A general linear model identified independent predictors of change in exercise self-efficacy. Results: The mean age of patients (n = 194) was 65.9 ± 10.5 yr, and 81% were males. The majority (80%) were married or partnered, 76% were White, and 24% were from an ethnic minority background. Patients received CR in-person (n = 91, 47%) or remote-delivered (n = 103, 54%). Exercise self-efficacy mean scores improved significantly from 25.2 ± 5.8 at CR entry to 26.2 ± 6.3 points at completion (P = .025). The majority of patients (59%) improved their self-efficacy scores, 34% worsened, and 7% had no change. Predictors of reduced exercise self-efficacy change were being from an ethnic minority (B =−2.96), not having a spouse/partner (B =−2.42), attending in-person CR (B =1.75), and having higher exercise self-efficacy at entry (B =−0.37) (adjusted R ² = 0.247). Conclusions: Confidence for self-directed exercise improves in most, but not all, patients during CR. Those at risk for poor improvement (ethnic minorities, single patients) may need extra or tailored support, and screening for exercise self-efficacy at CR entry and completion is recommended. Differences identified from CR delivery mode need exploration using robust methods to account for complex factors.

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. 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 < 0.001], but participation by ethnic minorities was lower (13.6% vs. 35.2%, P < 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). 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.