This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Digital Health Reviews (1174) Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (3092)

Published on in Vol 24, No 8 (2022): August

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/40090, first published .
Effects of eHealth Interventions on Quality of Life and Psychological Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Effects of eHealth Interventions on Quality of Life and Psychological Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Effects of eHealth Interventions on Quality of Life and Psychological Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Authors of this article:

Ruping Ni1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Maobai Liu1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Shunmin Huang1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Jing Yang1, 2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (4) Tweetations (11) Metrics

    Review

    1Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China

    2College of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Jing Yang, MS

    Department of Pharmacy

    Fujian Medical University Union Hospital

    29 Xinquan Road

    Gulou District

    Fuzhou, 350001

    China

    Phone: 86 13706987692

    Email: jiangyang@fjmu.edu.cn


    Background: Patients undergoing heart surgery may experience a range of physiological changes, and the postoperative recovery time is long. Patients and their families often have concerns about quality of life (QoL) after discharge. eHealth interventions may improve patient participation, ensure positive and effective health management, improve the quality of at-home care and the patient's quality of life, and reduce rates of depression.

    Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of eHealth interventions on the physiology, psychology, and compliance of adult patients after cardiac surgery to provide a theoretical basis for clinical practice.

    Methods: We conducted systematic searches of the following 4 electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Mean (SD) values were used to calculate the pooled effect sizes for all consecutive data, including QoL, anxiety, and depression. Where the same results were obtained using different instruments, we chose the standardized mean difference with a 95% CI to represent the combined effect size; otherwise, the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI was used. Odds ratios were used to calculate the combined effect size for all dichotomous data. The Cohen Q test for chi-square distribution and an inconsistency index (I2) were used to test for heterogeneity among the studies. We chose a fixed-effects model to estimate the effect size if there was no significant heterogeneity in the data (I2≤50%); otherwise, a random-effects model was used. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).

    Results: The search identified 3632 papers, of which 19 met the inclusion criteria. In terms of physical outcomes, the score of the control group was lower than that of the intervention group (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.27, I2=0%, P=.02). There was no significant difference in the mental outcomes between the intervention and control groups (MD 0.10, 95% CI –0.03 to 0.24, I2=46.4%, P=.14). The control group’s score was lower than that of the intervention group for the depression outcomes (MD –0.53, 95% CI –0.89 to –0.17, I2=57.1%, P=.004). Compliance outcomes improved in most intervention groups. The results of the sensitivity analysis were robust. Nearly half of the included studies (9/19, 47%) had a moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was medium to low.

    Conclusions: eHealth improved the physical component of quality of life and depression after cardiac surgery; however, there was no statistical difference in the mental component of quality of life. The effectiveness of eHealth on patient compliance has been debated. Further high-quality studies on digital health are required.

    Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022327305; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=327305

    J Med Internet Res 2022;24(8):e40090

    doi:10.2196/40090

    Keywords

    eHealth; eHealth intervention; cardiac surgery; depression; anxiety; quality of life; meta-analysis; heart disease; surgery; heart surgery; post-operative; postoperative; mental health; home care; digital health intervention; digital health; outcomes; psychological; physiological; physiology; psychology; compliance 


    Quality of Life and Cardiac Surgery

    More than 1.5 million patients worldwide undergo heart surgery annually, and this number continues to grow [1]. Patients experience a series of psychophysiological changes before and after surgery. Preoperative anxiety and depression trigger the psychological response system, which in turn activates the endocrine and autonomic nervous systems, affecting postoperative outcomes, length of hospital stay, and quality of life [2,3]. Moreover, psychological changes related to chronic stress, such as anxiety and depression, can affect not only quality of life but also physiological parameters such as respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure, inflammatory markers, and brain activity, which may be detrimental to postoperative recovery [4-6]. The recovery period after cardiac surgery is relatively long, and most of the recovery processes, such as the healing of surgical wounds and the recovery of cardiac function, take place at home or in other facilities outside the hospital [7]. After cardiac surgery, patients and their families often have concerns regarding quality of life after discharge [8,9], since they will be solely responsible for at-home care [10,11]. Many problems can arise due to a lack of self-care knowledge and skills, and these problems increase with inadequate follow-up for patient education, counseling, and postoperative care [12].

    eHealth Interventions

    In recent years, both health professionals and patients have been increasingly involved in eHealth [13], which includes mobile health, mobile and wireless technologies, health information technology, telemedicine, and personalized medicine, to improve clinical care, such as public health, health administration, and health-related education [14]. eHealth is often designed to support the achievement of health goals. With the increasing social demand for electronic technology, the use of mobile devices has the great potential to transform conventional health care and implement patient-centered initiatives [15-17]. Increased patient engagement is a key factor in eHealth and has the potential to motivate users and enable them to become more proactive and effective in managing their own health, ultimately improving quality of care [18]. The quality of health care has improved significantly with the use of telemedicine [19]. In addition, electronic medical interventions are already widely used in perioperative nursing [20].

    Approximately 70% of patients consult the internet for information soon after learning about their upcoming surgery [21,22]. Studies [23,24] have reported that eHealth interventions for cardiac rehabilitation can also improve patients’ quality of life. These interventions provide continuous education regarding patient care and treatment, and offer counseling and support to at-home care providers while allowing access to vital information for patients, their families, and health care providers [25].

    Many studies have evaluated the potential benefits of eHealth interventions in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery. However, to date, there has been no systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of these eHealth interventions compared to conventional care in terms of physiology, psychology, and compliance of adult patients after cardiac surgery. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review to assess the impact of eHealth interventions after cardiac surgery on quality of life, psychology, and compliance.


    Design

    This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement (Multimedia Appendix 1) [26]. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42022327305).

    Search Strategy and Data Sources

    The PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to April 2022. The search strategy consisted of 2 components: clinical situation (adult, cardiac surgery) and intervention type (health management using mobile phones, wearables, personal digital assistants, and other wireless devices). Relevant search items and combinations of Medical Subject Headings were used to identify trials related to eHealth and cardiac surgery. Searches were not limited to a specific geographic region, language, or period, but any literature without its full text was excluded. We exclusively included randomized controlled trials. The exact search terms used in each of the databases and the corresponding number of results are provided (Multimedia Appendix 2). EndNote 20 (Clarivate) was used for database management.

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients aged 18 years or older at the time of heart surgery and studies that did not specify the type of heart surgery, (2) studies that evaluated any type of eHealth intervention, and (3) randomized controlled clinical studies.

    Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies where the full text could not be obtained, (2) insufficient clinical data that were reported in the form of meeting abstracts and did not provide detailed treatment methods or report the relevant results, and (3) duplicate studies.

    Document Screening and Data Extraction

    Two researchers (RN and ML) independently performed the literature screening and data extraction according to the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria. Decisions on inclusion or exclusion were made by the researchers after a joint discussion of the results. Disagreements were resolved by a third party.

    One researcher extracted the data using a literature data extraction table, and a second researcher confirmed the accuracy and authenticity of the data. The extracted content included study information (research topic, author, publication date, and region), baseline characteristics of the study participants (sample size and age), specific details of the intervention, follow-up time, and other outcome indicators (quality of life, anxiety and depression, cardiovascular events, treatment, and medication compliance).

    Data Analyses

    Mean (SD) values were used to calculate the pooled effect sizes for all consecutive data, including quality of life and depression. When measuring the same outcome using different instruments, we chose the standardized mean difference with a 95% CI to represent the combined effect size; otherwise, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI to represent the combined effect size. Odds ratios were used to calculate the combined effect size for all dichotomous data. The Cohen Q test for chi-square distribution and an inconsistency index (I2) were used to test for heterogeneity among the studies. We selected a fixed-effects model to estimate the effect size if there was no significant heterogeneity in the data (I2≤50%). Otherwise, a random effects model was used. A sensitivity analysis was performed using the leave-one-out method. All meta-analyses were performed using the Stata software (version 15.1; StataCorp).

    Quality Assessment

    Before analyzing the extracted data, 2 researchers independently assessed the quality of the included studies. A discussion with a third reviewer was conducted until a consensus was reached and disagreements were resolved. The quality of each study was assessed according to the guidelines provided by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, version 2.0 (RoB 2) [27]. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach [28].


    Identification of Studies

    The PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1 summarizes the search results and selection process for all studies included in our synthesis. A total of 3632 articles were retrieved through a systematic literature search. After removing duplicate studies, the remaining 2979 records were screened. After reading 41 eligible full-text articles, 22 were excluded, and 19 were selected [29-47]. A summary of the study characteristics and participant demographics are presented in Multimedia Appendix 3 [29-47].

    ‎
    Figure 1. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart.
    View this figure

    Meta-analysis

    Primary Outcome
    Quality of Life

    The fixed-effects analysis model was used to analyze the physical and mental outcomes of quality of life. In terms of physical outcomes, the scores of the control group were lower than those of the intervention group (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.27, I2=0%, P=.02) (Figure 2). However, there was no significant difference in the mental outcomes between the intervention and control groups (MD 0.10, 95% CI –0.03 to 0.24, I2=46.4%, P=.14) (Figure 3).

    ‎
    Figure 2. Forest plot of the effect of physical outcomes of quality of life after cardiac surgery. SMD: standardized mean difference.
    View this figure
    ‎
    Figure 3. Forest plot of the effect of mental outcomes of quality of life after cardiac surgery. SMD: standardized mean difference.
    View this figure
    Depression

    To evaluate depression outcomes, we used a random-effects analysis model. The score of the control group was lower than that of the intervention group (MD –0.53, 95% CI –0.89 to –0.17, I2=57.1%, P=.004) (Figure 4). Owing to sparse data, there was no subgroup analysis of the main outcome indicators based on a follow-up period of 3 months.

    ‎
    Figure 4. Forest plot of the effect of depression after cardiac surgery. SMD: standardized mean difference.
    View this figure
    Other Outcomes

    Three studies [29,30,42] reported no significant difference in the improvement of anxiety between the intervention and control groups. The occurrence of mortality was reported in 4 studies [31,32,36,39], of which 1 study [31] showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality in the intervention group, while the other 3 studies reported different conclusions. A total of 4 studies [30,35,39,42] reported no statistical significance for readmission between the intervention and control groups. Among the 3 studies [31,39,43] that reported on compliance, 2 studies [31,43] showed better compliance in the experimental group compared to the control group. However, 1 study [39] showed no statistical difference in compliance between the two groups. Two studies [35,37] indicated that none of the 4 lipid indexes had statistical significance. We generated 2 forest plots to show the effects of eHealth on other outcomes (Multimedia Appendices 4 and 5). Most of the studies had no significant differences in their results, apart from those for compliance, bleeding events, secondary prophylactic medication, patient satisfaction, and time in the therapeutic range (Multimedia Appendices 4 and 5).

    Sensitivity Analysis

    A sensitivity analysis of quality of life and depressive outcomes was performed using the leave-one-out method, as shown in Multimedia Appendix 6 [31,32,34,35,37,41,45], and the results were consistent.

    Quality Assessment

    RoB 2 [27] was used for quality evaluation. Overall, the included studies had a low to moderate risk of bias, as shown in Figure 5. Most articles did not clearly report the randomization process. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach [28]. The quality rates of each outcome are shown in Multimedia Appendix 7. In summary, although the quality of some outcomes was moderate, the overall quality was low.

    ‎
    Figure 5. A risk-of-bias map using the Cochrane systematic evaluation method to assess the quality of the included randomized controlled trials.
    View this figure

    Principal Findings

    In this systematic review, we assessed the impact of eHealth interventions on cardiac surgery recovery based on the results of 19 studies. These studies reported at least an equal (n=6) [29,30,33,38,39,42] or positive effect (n=13) [31,32,34-37,40,41,43-47] of the eHealth intervention compared to conventional care. According to the results of the meta-analysis, when compared with the control group, the eHealth intervention group showed an improvement in both the physical component of quality of life and the depressive status of patients after cardiac surgery. The mental component of quality of life was not significantly different in the two groups. This may be related to the shorter follow-up period of the included studies. Lin et al [31] showed that an effect on quality of life was not observed until the follow-up after 18 months, which was not long enough for most of the studies we included.

    van der Meij et al [48] showed that eHealth interventions have similar effects on different types of postoperative outcome measurements. The results for physical and psychological indicators were comparable. Therefore, we only conducted a meta-analysis on quality of life and depression. Study results on patients with different types of heart surgery, eHealth interventions, and measured outcomes varied widely. Due to the lack of reported data and heterogeneity, analysis of the other results using statistical methods was not performed. The economics of eHealth interventions have also not been studied yet. In terms of medication adherence, 2 of the 3 studies reported improved medication adherence after eHealth intervention [31,43]. Fewer than 10 studies were included in the quantitative analysis for each outcome; therefore, publication bias analysis was not performed. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as the overall quality of the body of evidence was low to moderate because of the risk of bias in the included studies.

    Patients undergoing different cardiac surgeries have different postoperative needs. The studies in this review included eHealth interventions for medication education, consultation, follow-up, postoperative exercise, and rehabilitation. eHealth interventions were also used specifically for postoperative pain [38], anticoagulant management [44,47], and secondary drug prevention [33,35,39]. Martorella et al [38] revealed that patients in the experimental group did not experience less intense pain but reported significantly less pain interference when breathing or coughing (P=.04). However, the experimental group consumed more opioid medication (mean 31.2, SD 23.2 mg) than the control group (mean 18.8, SD 15.3 mg; P=.001). Two studies [44,47] showed that the use of eHealth improved efficacy in maintaining the therapeutic range of prothrombin time. Another study [44] showed improvement in self-management knowledge, self-efficacy, and improved behavior of patients undergoing cardiac valve replacement, as well as reduced adverse events for bleeding thrombosis [47] through eHealth intervention. Qu et al [33] showed that eHealth interventions have limited ability to increase prescription rates for statins or other drugs. Widmer et al [35] showed that eHealth interventions can improve the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Yu et al [39] showed that the intervention group had no significant impact on mortality, major adverse cerebrovascular events, and cardiovascular rehospitalization, which may be related to low patient participation.

    Limitations

    First, due to sparse data, there was no subgroup analysis of the main outcomes according to follow-up time, nor was there a comparative analysis of the pros and cons of different types of electronic interventions and different types of cardiac surgery on postoperative effects. Moreover, due to the limited number of included studies and the lack of publication bias analysis, the number of measured depression outcomes was small, and there was a possibility of deviation. Finally, allocation hiding was not explicitly reported in most of the included studies. The quality of the study outcomes was relatively low, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials should be included in the future.

    Comparison With Prior Work

    According to our literature review, there have been many studies on the clinical application of eHealth interventions. However, to our knowledge, there is no systematic study on the impact of electronic interventions on patients after cardiac surgery. This is the first published systematic evaluation of the effects of using eHealth on patients who have undergone cardiac surgery. We ensured the use of robust methodology to conduct this review by following the PRISMA guidelines [26].

    Among the published systematic evaluations, studies on the application of electronic interventions included patients with cancer, respiratory diseases, and arthritis. In terms of quality of life, 3 studies [49-51] reported that electronic interventions were ineffective, but 7 [52-58] reported improvement in quality of life. Two articles [51,57] reported that electronic intervention was ineffective in relieving anxiety, and another [59] showed mixed views. Electronic intervention was reported to be ineffective for depression in 2 studies [51,60], whereas 3 articles [54,55,59] provided mixed conclusions. There were mixed results regarding the effect of pain relief, with some studies [50,51] indicating no effect on pain relief, and others [55,61] reporting the opposite. Seven studies reported on patient compliance: 2 studies [51,62] showed no statistical significance in improving patient compliance, 3 studies [63-65] showed a positive impact, and according to the remaining 2 studies [66,67], the impact was uncertain. Another study [68] indicated that electronic intervention could effectively improve maximum aerobic capacity and alter cardiovascular risk factors. In addition, we found that the effectiveness of electronic interventions may be related to the disease type. eHealth interventions showed positive effects on the outcome of some patients [52-55], but studies reporting on patients with cancer [49] and patients with arthritis [50,51] reported negative results.

    There are many different types of cardiac surgery, such as valve replacement, bypass, and heart transplantation. The various results relating to different disease types might indicate that the effect of eHealth intervention may vary according to patient type. More high-quality studies are needed to verify these findings.

    Conclusions

    Based on this systematic review, the eHealth intervention group showed improvement in both the physical component of quality of life and depressive status after cardiac surgery, but the positive effects of the intervention were small. Moreover, the mental component of quality of life was not significantly different between the two groups. The overall quality of the evidence was low to medium. The compliance outcomes improved in most intervention groups. In the future, higher-quality randomized controlled studies of eHealth interventions are needed to provide more evidence for clinical practice.

    Acknowledgments

    We acknowledge the grants received from the Fujian Undergraduate Education and Teaching Reform Research Major Project (grant FBJG20210119) and the Education and Teaching Reform Research Project of Fujian Medical University (grant J21007).

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

    DOCX File , 27 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Search terms.

    DOCX File , 27 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Baseline characteristics of the 19 studies selected for the meta-analysis.

    DOCX File , 28 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    Forest plot of the effect of eHealth on other cardiac postoperative outcomes (continuous data).

    DOCX File , 126 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 5

    Forest plot of the effect of eHealth on other cardiac postoperative outcomes (dichotomous data).

    DOCX File , 116 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 6

    Influence analysis.

    DOCX File , 23 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 7

    The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome.

    DOCX File , 23 KB
    1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update. Circulation 2016 Jan 26;133(4):e38-e360. [CrossRef]
    2. Poole L, Ronaldson A, Kidd T, Leigh E, Jahangiri M, Steptoe A. Pre-surgical depression and anxiety and recovery following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Behav Med 2017 Apr;40(2):249-258 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Phadke SSD, Parkar H, Yardi S. Effect of music intervention on immediate post operative coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients. Ind Jour of Physioth and Occupat Therapy - An Inter Jour 2014 Dec;8(4):106 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Rosengren A, Hawken S, Ôunpuu S, Sliwa K, Zubaid M, Almahmeed WA, et al. Association of psychosocial risk factors with risk of acute myocardial infarction in 11 119 cases and 13 648 controls from 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. The Lancet 2004 Sep;364(9438):953-962. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Richardson S, Shaffer JA, Falzon L, Krupka D, Davidson KW, Edmondson D. Meta-analysis of perceived stress and its association with incident coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol 2012 Dec 15;110(12):1711-1716 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Custodis F, Gertz K, Balkaya M, Prinz V, Mathar I, Stamm C, et al. Heart rate contributes to the vascular effects of chronic mental stress: effects on endothelial function and ischemic brain injury in mice. Stroke 2011 Jun;42(6):1742-1749. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB, American Heart Association Statistics CommitteeStroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012 Jan 03;125(1):e2-e220 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Bikmoradi A, Masmouei B, Ghomeisi M, Roshanaei G. Impact of tele-nursing on adherence to treatment plan in discharged patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A quasi-experimental study in Iran. Int J Med Inform 2016 Feb;86:43-48. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Bikmoradi A, Zafari A, Oshvandi K, Mazdeh M, Roshanaei G. Effect of progressive muscle relaxation on severity of pain in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Hayat 2014;20(1):26-37 [FREE Full text]
    10. Bikmoradi A, Seifi Z, Poorolajal J, Araghchian M, Safiaryan R, Oshvandi K. Effect of inhalation aromatherapy with lavender essential oil on stress and vital signs in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: A single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Complement Ther Med 2015 Jun;23(3):331-338. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Seifi Z, Beikmoradi A, Oshvandi K, Poorolajal J, Araghchian M, Safiaryan R. The effect of lavender essential oil on anxiety level in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2014 Nov;19(6):574-580 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    12. Khodaveisi M, Pazargadi M, Yaghmaei F, Bikmoradi A. Identifying challenges for effective evaluation in nursing education: A qualitative study. J Res Med Sci 2012 Jul;17(7):710-717 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    13. Digital health. US Food and Drug Administration. 2018.   URL: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/digitalhealth/ [accessed 2020-04-09]
    14. van Dyk L. A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014 Jan 23;11(2):1279-1298 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Vallespin B, Cornet J, Kotzeva A. Ensuring evidence-based safe and effective mHealth applications. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016;222:248-261. [Medline]
    16. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. JCO 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-565. [CrossRef]
    17. Park LG, Howie-Esquivel J, Dracup K. A quantitative systematic review of the efficacy of mobile phone interventions to improve medication adherence. J Adv Nurs 2014 Sep 01;70(9):1932-1953. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Barello S, Triberti S, Graffigna G, Libreri C, Serino S, Hibbard J, et al. eHealth for patient engagement: a systematic review. Front Psychol 2015 Jan;6:2013 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Raikhelkar J, Raikhelkar JK. The impact of telemedicine in cardiac critical care. Crit Care Clin 2015 Apr;31(2):305-317. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Cook DJ, Manning DM, Holland DE, Prinsen SK, Rudzik SD, Roger VL, et al. Patient engagement and reported outcomes in surgical recovery: effectiveness of an e-health platform. J Am Coll Surg 2013 Oct;217(4):648-655. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Di Giammarco GG, Di Mascio T, Di Mauro M, Tarquinio A, Tarquinio A, Vittorini P. SmartHeart CABG Edu: first prototype and preliminary evaluation. In: Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning. Cham: Springer; 2013:57-66.
    22. Dale JG, Midthus E, Dale B. Using information and communication technology in the recovery after a coronary artery bypass graft surgery: patients' attitudes. J Multidiscip Healthc 2018 Aug 27;11(5):417-423 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Frederix I, Hansen D, Coninx K, Vandervoort P, Vandijck D, Hens N, et al. Effect of comprehensive cardiac telerehabilitation on one-year cardiovascular rehospitalization rate, medical costs and quality of life: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016 May 19;23(7):674-682. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Chauvet-Gelinier J, Bonin B. Stress, anxiety and depression in heart disease patients: A major challenge for cardiac rehabilitation. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2017 Jan;60(1):6-12 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Malakoti J, Sohrabi F, Shokranian N. The effect of telephone support on postpartum depression: a randomized controlled trial. J Caring Sci 2013 Jun;2(2):147-155 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Schünemann H, Brozek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE Handbook. The GRADE Working Group. 2013 Oct.   URL: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html [accessed 2019-10-24]
    29. Chunta K. An interventional study to provide telephone follow-up support to open-heart surgery patients during recovery. Appl Nurs Res 2016 Nov;32:41-43. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Keeping-Burke L, Purden M, Frasure-Smith N, Cossette S, McCarthy F, Amsel R. Bridging the transition from hospital to home: effects of the VITAL telehealth program on recovery for CABG surgery patients and their caregivers. Res Nurs Health 2013 Dec;36(6):540-553. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Lin C, Yaseri M, Pakpour AH, Malm D, Broström A, Fridlund B, et al. Can a multifaceted intervention including motivational interviewing improve medication adherence, quality of life, and mortality rates in older patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery? A multicenter, randomized controlled trial with 18-month follow-up. Drugs Aging 2017 Feb;34(2):143-156. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Arthur HM, Daniels C, McKelvie R, Hirsh J, Rush B. Effect of a preoperative intervention on preoperative and postoperative outcomes in low-risk patients awaiting elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2000 Aug 15;133(4):253-262. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Qu J, Du J, Rao C, Chen S, Gu D, Li J, MISSION-1 Collaborative Group. Effect of a smartphone-based intervention on secondary prevention medication prescriptions after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: The MISSION-1 randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2021 Jul;237:79-89. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Rollman BL, Belnap BH, LeMenager MS, Mazumdar S, Houck PR, Counihan PJ, et al. Telephone-delivered collaborative care for treating post-CABG depression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009 Nov 18;302(19):2095-2103 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Widmer RJ, Allison TG, Lennon R, Lopez-Jimenez F, Lerman LO, Lerman A. Digital health intervention during cardiac rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial. Am Heart J 2017 Jun;188:65-72. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Watanabe E, Yamazaki F, Goto T, Asai T, Yamamoto T, Hirooka K, et al. Remote management of pacemaker patients with biennial in-clinic evaluation: continuous home monitoring in the Japanese at-home study: a randomized clinical trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2020 May;13(5):e007734 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Lunde P, Bye A, Bergland A, Grimsmo J, Jarstad E, Nilsson BB. Long-term follow-up with a smartphone application improves exercise capacity post cardiac rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2020 Nov;27(16):1782-1792 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Martorella G, Côté J, Racine M, Choinière M. Web-based nursing intervention for self-management of pain after cardiac surgery: pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2012;14(6):e177 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Yu C, Liu C, Du J, Liu H, Zhang H, Zhao Y, MISSION-2 Collaborative Group. Smartphone-based application to improve medication adherence in patients after surgical coronary revascularization. Am Heart J 2020 Oct;228:17-26. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Barnason S, Zimmerman L, Nieveen J, Schulz P, Miller C, Hertzog M, et al. Influence of a symptom management telehealth intervention on older adults' early recovery outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery. Heart Lung 2009;38(5):364-376 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Bikmoradi A, Masmouei B, Ghomeisi M, Roshanaei G, Masiello I. Impact of telephone counseling on the quality of life of patients discharged after coronary artery bypass grafts. Patient Educ Couns 2017 Dec;100(12):2290-2296. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Danielsen SO, Moons P, Sandvik L, Leegaard M, Solheim S, Tønnessen T, et al. Impact of telephone follow-up and 24/7 hotline on 30-day readmission rates following aortic valve replacement - A randomized controlled trial. Int J Cardiol 2020 Feb 01;300:66-72. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Gomis-Pastor M, Mirabet Perez S, Roig Minguell E, Brossa Loidi V, Lopez Lopez L, Ros Abarca S, et al. Mobile health to improve adherence and patient experience in heart transplantation recipients: the mHeart trial. Healthcare (Basel) 2021 Apr 14;9(4):463 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Jeon HR, Park JS. [Development and application of a self-management program based on prothrombin INR monitoring for patients with cardiac valve replacement]. J Korean Acad Nurs 2015 Aug;45(4):554-564. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Lindman BR, Gillam LD, Coylewright M, Welt FGP, Elmariah S, Smith SA, et al. Effect of a pragmatic home-based mobile health exercise intervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a randomized pilot trial. Eur Heart J Digit Health 2021 Mar;2(1):90-103 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Yadav S, Sethi R, Pradhan A, Vishwakarma P, Bhandari M, Gattani R, et al. 'Routine' versus 'Smart Phone Application Based - Intense' follow up of patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Impact on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 2021 Aug;35:100832 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Zhu Z, Li C, Shen J, Wu K, Li Y, Liu K, et al. New internet-based warfarin anticoagulation management approach after mechanical heart valve replacement: prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2021 Aug 13;23(8):e29529 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. van der Meij E, Anema JR, Otten RHJ, Huirne JAF, Schaafsma FG. The effect of perioperative e-health interventions on the postoperative course: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. PLoS One 2016;11(7):e0158612 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Xu A, Wang Y, Wu X. Effectiveness of e-health based self-management to improve cancer-related fatigue, self-efficacy and quality of life in cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs 2019 Dec;75(12):3434-3447. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Zhou L, Zhou Y, Yu P, Meng F, Xu Y, Jiang Y. Effects of e-health interventions on health outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs 2022 Jan 31. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Butler S, Sculley D, Santos D, Fellas A, Gironès X, Singh-Grewal D, et al. Effectiveness of eHealth and mHealth interventions supporting children and young people living with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2022 Feb 02;24(2):e30457 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Li J, Liu Y, Jiang J, Peng X, Hu X. Effect of telehealth interventions on quality of life in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Nurs Stud 2021 Oct;122:103970. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Larson JL, Rosen AB, Wilson FA. The effect of telehealth interventions on quality of life of cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Informatics J 2020 Jun;26(2):1060-1078 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Seiler A, Klaas V, Tröster G, Fagundes CP. eHealth and mHealth interventions in the treatment of fatigued cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychooncology 2017 Sep;26(9):1239-1253. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Chen Y, Guan B, Li Z, Li X. Effect of telehealth intervention on breast cancer patients' quality of life and psychological outcomes: A meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2018 Apr;24(3):157-167. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Snoswell CL, Rahja M, Lalor AF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of change in health-related quality of life for interactive telehealth interventions for patients with asthma. Value Health 2021 Feb;24(2):291-302 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Su JJ, Yu DSF, Paguio JT. Effect of eHealth cardiac rehabilitation on health outcomes of coronary heart disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs 2020 Mar;76(3):754-772. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Esfandiari E, Miller WC, Ashe MC. The effect of telehealth interventions on function and quality of life for older adults with pre-frailty or frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Gerontol 2021 Nov;40(11):1649-1658. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Zhao L, Chen J, Lan L, Deng N, Liao Y, Yue L, et al. Effectiveness of telehealth interventions for women with postpartum depression: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021 Oct 07;9(10):e32544 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Thabrew H, Stasiak K, Hetrick SE, Wong S, Huss JH, Merry SN. E-Health interventions for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents with long-term physical conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 Aug 15;8:CD012489 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Du S, Liu W, Cai S, Hu Y, Dong J. The efficacy of e-health in the self-management of chronic low back pain: A meta analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2020 Jun;106:103507. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Bingham JM, Black M, Anderson EJ, Li Y, Toselli N, Fox S, et al. Impact of telehealth interventions on medication adherence for patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother 2021 May;55(5):637-649. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Jeminiwa R, Hohmann L, Qian J, Garza K, Hansen R, Fox BI. Impact of eHealth on medication adherence among patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Med 2019 Mar;149:59-68. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Kebapci A, Ozkaynak M, Lareau SC. Effects of eHealth-based interventions on adherence to components of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020;35(1):74-85. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Pouls BPH, Vriezekolk JE, Bekker CL, Linn AJ, van Onzenoort HAW, Vervloet M, et al. Effect of interactive eHealth interventions on improving medication adherence in adults with long-term medication: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021 Jan 08;23(1):e18901 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Aardoom JJ, Loheide-Niesmann L, Ossebaard HC, Riper H. Effectiveness of eHealth interventions in improving treatment adherence for adults with obstructive sleep apnea: meta-analytic review. J Med Internet Res 2020 Feb 18;22(2):e16972 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Schulte MHJ, Aardoom JJ, Loheide-Niesmann L, Verstraete LLL, Ossebaard HC, Riper H. Effectiveness of eHealth interventions in improving medication adherence for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021 Jul 27;23(7):e29475 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Rawstorn JC, Gant N, Direito A, Beckmann C, Maddison R. Telehealth exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2016 Aug 01;102(15):1183-1192. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations
    MD: mean difference
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
    QoL: quality of life

    Edited by T Leung, G Eysenbach; submitted 06.06.22; peer-reviewed by M Pritchard, X Xiong; comments to author 29.06.22; revised version received 12.07.22; accepted 26.07.22; published 16.08.22

    Copyright

    ©Ruping Ni, Maobai Liu, Shunmin Huang, Jing Yang. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 16.08.2022.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.