Due to rapid technological advancements, remote patient monitoring (RPM) technology has gained traction in recent years. While the effects of specific RPM interventions are known, few published reviews examine RPM in the context of care transitions from an inpatient hospital setting to a home environment. In this systematic review, we addressed this gap by examining the impacts of RPM interventions on patient safety, adherence, clinical and quality of life outcomes and cost-related outcomes during care transition from inpatient care to a home setting. We searched five academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and SCOPUS), screened 2606 articles, and included 29 studies from 16 countries. These studies examined seven types of RPM interventions (communication tools, computer-based systems, smartphone applications, web portals, augmented clinical devices with monitoring capabilities, wearables and standard clinical tools for intermittent monitoring). RPM interventions demonstrated positive outcomes in patient safety and adherence. RPM interventions also improved patients’ mobility and functional statuses, but the impact on other clinical and quality-of-life measures, such as physical and mental health symptoms, remains inconclusive. In terms of cost-related outcomes, there was a clear downward trend in the risks of hospital admission/readmission, length of stay, number of outpatient visits and non-hospitalisation costs. Future research should explore whether incorporating intervention components with a strong human element alongside the deployment of technology enhances the effectiveness of RPM. The review highlights the need for more economic evaluations and implementation studies that shed light on the facilitators and barriers to adopting RPM interventions in different care settings.

Physical disabilities become more common with advancing age. Rehabilitation restores function, maintaining independence for longer. However, the poor availability and accessibility of rehabilitation limits its clinical impact. Artificial Intelligence (AI) guided interventions have improved many domains of healthcare, but whether rehabilitation can benefit from AI remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of AI-supported physical rehabilitation technology tested in the clinical setting to understand: 1) availability of AI-supported physical rehabilitation technology; 2) its clinical effect; 3) and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), CIRRIE (now NARIC), and OpenGrey. We identified 9054 articles and included 28 projects. AI solutions spanned five categories: App-based systems, robotic devices that replace function, robotic devices that restore function, gaming systems and wearables. We identified five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which evaluated outcomes relating to physical function, activity, pain, and health-related quality of life. The clinical effects were inconsistent. Implementation barriers included technology literacy, reliability, and user fatigue. Enablers included greater access to rehabilitation programmes, remote monitoring of progress, reduction in manpower requirements and lower cost. Application of AI in physical rehabilitation is a growing field, but clinical effects have yet to be studied rigorously. Developers must strive to conduct robust clinical evaluations in the real-world setting and appraise post implementation experiences.

Background and Objectives: There is a growing interest to involve older adults in the co-design of technology to maintain their well-being and independence. What remains unknown is whether the beneficial effects of co-designed solutions are greater than those reported for non co-designed solutions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and experiences of co-designed technology that support older adults to age in place. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a systematic review to (a) investigate the health and well-being outcomes of co-designed technology for older adults (≥60 years), (b) identify co-design approaches and contexts where they are applied, and (c) identify barriers and facilitators of the co-design process with older adults. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, OpenGrey, and Business Source Premiere. Results: We identified 14,649 articles and included 34 projects. Four projects reported health and well-being outcomes; the effects were inconsistent. Co-design processes varied greatly and in their intensity of older adult involvement. Common facilitators of and barriers to co-design included the building of relationships between stakeholders, stakeholder knowledge of problems and solutions, and expertise in the co-design methodology. Discussion and Implications: The effect of co-designed technology on health and well-being was rarely studied and it was difficult to ascertain its impact. Future co-design efforts need to address barriers unique to older adults. Evaluation of the impact of co-designed technologies is needed and standardization of the definition of co-design would be helpful to researchers and designers.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation ( CR ) is grossly underused, with major inequities in access. However, use of CR and predictors of initiation in England where CR contracting is available is unknown. The aims were (1) to investigate CR utilization rates in England, and (2) to determine sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with CR initiation including social deprivation. Methods and Results: Data from the National Audit of CR , between January 2012 and November 2015, were used. Utilization rates overall and by deprivation quintile were derived. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of initiation among enrollees, using the Huber–White–sandwich estimator robust standard errors method to account for the nested nature of the data. Of the 234 736 (81.5%) patients referred to CR , 141 648 enrolled, 97 406 initiated CR , and of those initiating, 37.2% completed a program of ≥8 weeks duration. The significant characteristics associated with CR initiation were younger age (odds ratio [ OR ] 0.98, 95% CI 0.98–0.99), having a partner ( OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17–1.48), not being employed ( OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.96), not having diabetes mellitus ( OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77–0.92), greater anxiety ( OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.003–1.04), not being a medically managed myocardial infarction patient ( OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42–0.76), and having had coronary artery bypass graft surgery ( OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.09–2.47). Conclusions: CR enrollment does not meet English National Health Service targets; however it compares with that in other countries. Evidence‐based approaches increasing CR enrollment and initiation should be applied, focusing on the identified characteristics associated with CR initiation, specifically older, single, employed individuals with diabetes mellitus and those not revascularized.

The beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) have been challenged in recent years and there is now a need to investigate whether current CR programmes, delivered in the context of modern cardiology, still benefit patients. A systematic review of non-randomised controlled studies was conducted. Electronic searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, science citation index (web of science), CIRRIE and Open Grey were undertaken. Non-randomised studies investigating the effects of CR were included when recruitment occurred from the year 2000 onwards in accordance with significant CR guidance changes from the late 1990’s. Adult patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were included. Non-English articles were considered. Two reviewers independently screened articles according to pre-defined selection criteria as reported in the PROSPERO database (CRD42015024021). Out of 2,656 articles, 8 studies involving 9,836 AMI patients were included. Studies were conducted in 6 countries. CR was found to reduce the risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality and improve Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) significantly in at least one domain. The benefits of CR in terms of recurrent MI were inconsistent and no significant effects were found regarding re-vascularisation or re-hospitalisation following AMI. Recent observational evidence draws different conclusions to the most current reviews of trial data with respect to total mortality and re-hospitalisation, questioning the representativeness of historic data in the modern cardiological era. Future work should seek to clarify which patient and service level factors determine the likelihood of achieving improved all-cause and cardiac mortality and reduced hospital re-admissions.

Background: The co-design of health care enables patient-centredness by partnering patients, clinicians and other stakeholders together to create services. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of co-designed health interventions for people living with multimorbidity and assessed (a) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes, (b) the co-design approaches used and (c) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process with people living with multimorbidity. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO between 2000 and March 2022. Included experimental studies were quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2 and ROBINS-I). Results: We screened 14,376 reports, with 13 reports meeting the eligibility criteria. Two reported health and well-being outcomes: one randomised clinical trial (n = 134) and one controlled cohort (n = 1933). Outcome measures included quality of life, self-efficacy, well-being, anxiety, depression, functional status, healthcare utilisation and mortality. Outcomes favouring the co-design interventions compared to control were minimal, with only 4 of 17 outcomes considered beneficial. Co-design approaches included needs assessment/ideation (12 of 13), prototype (11 of 13), pilot testing (5 of 13) (i.e. focus on usability) and health and well-being evaluations (2 of 13). Common challenges to the co-design process include poor stakeholder interest, passive participation, power imbalances and a lack of representativeness in the design group. Enablers include flexibility in approach, smaller group work, advocating for stakeholders’ views and commitment to the process or decisions made. Conclusions: In this systematic review of co-design health interventions, we found that few projects assessed health and well-being outcomes, and the observed health and well-being benefits were minimal. The intensity and variability in the co-design approaches were substantial, and challenges were evident. Co-design aided the design of novel services and interventions for those with multimorbidity, improving their relevance, usability and acceptability. However, the clinical benefits of co-designed interventions for those with multimorbidity are unclear.