Aims: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic saw the suspension of centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) and has underscored the need for home-based cardiac telerehabilitation (HBCTR) as a feasible alternative rehabilitation delivery model. Yet, the effectiveness of HBCTR as an alternative to Phase 2 CBCR is unknown. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to quantitatively appraise the effectiveness of HBCTR. Methods and results: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBCTR to Phase 2 CBCR or usual care in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Out of 1588 studies, 14 RCTs involving 2869 CHD patients were included in this review. When compared with usual care, participation in HBCTR showed significant improvement in functional capacity {6-min walking test distance [mean difference (MD) 25.58 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.74–36.42]}; daily step count (MD 1.05 K, 95% CI 0.36–1.75) and exercise habits [odds ratio (OR) 2.28, 95% CI 1.30–4.00)]; depression scores (standardized MD −0.16, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.01) and quality of life [Short-Form mental component summary (MD 2.63, 95% CI 0.06–5.20) and physical component summary (MD 1.99, 95% CI 0.83–3.16)]. Effects on medication adherence were synthesized narratively. HBCTR and CBCR were comparably effective. Conclusion: In patients with CHD, HBCTR was associated with an increase in functional capacity, physical activity (PA) behaviour, and depression when compared with UC. When HBCTR was compared to CBCR, an equivalent effect on functional capacity, PA behaviour, QoL, medication adherence, smoking behaviour, physiological risk factors, depression, and cardiac-related hospitalization was observed.

Background: An understanding of the technology acceptance of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation programs is paramount if they are to be designed and delivered to target the needs and preferences of patients with coronary heart disease; however, the current state of technology acceptance of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation has not been systematically evaluated in the literature. Objective: We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation technology acceptance in terms of (1) the timing and approaches used and (2) patients’ perspectives on its usability, utility, acceptability, acceptance, and external variables. Methods: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus (inception to July 2021) for English-language papers that reported empirical evidence on the technology acceptance of early-phase home-based cardiac telerehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease. Content analysis was undertaken. Results: The search identified 1798 studies, of which 18 studies, with 14 unique home-based cardiac telerehabilitation programs, met eligibility criteria. Technology acceptance (of the home-based cardiac telerehabilitation programs) was mostly evaluated at intra- and posttrial stages using questionnaires (n=10) and usage data (n=11). The least used approach was evaluation through qualitative interviews (n=3). Usability, utility, acceptability, and acceptance were generally favored. External variables that influenced home-based cardiac telerehabilitation usage included component quality, system quality, facilitating conditions, and intrinsic factors. Conclusions: Home-based cardiac telerehabilitation usability, utility, acceptability, and acceptance were high; yet, a number of external variables influenced acceptance. Findings and recommendations from this review can provide guidance for developing and evaluating patient-centered home-based cardiac telerehabilitation programs to stakeholders and clinicians.