6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mobile Technologies to Promote Physical Activity during Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Promoting regular physical activity (PA) and improving exercise capacity are the primary goals of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Mobile technologies (mTechs) like smartphones, smartwatches, and fitness trackers might help patients in reaching these goals. This review aimed to scope current scientific literature on mTechs in CR to assess the impact on patients’ exercise capacity and to identify gaps and future directions for research. PubMed, CENTRAL, and CDSR were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These RCTs had to utilize mTechs to objectively monitor and promote PA of patients during or following CR, aim at improvements in exercise capacity, and be published between December 2014 and December 2019. A total of 964 publications were identified, and 13 studies met all inclusion criteria. Home-based CR with mTechs vs. outpatient CR without mTechs and outpatient CR with mTechs vs. outpatient CR without mTechs did not lead to statistically significant differences in exercise capacity. In contrast, outpatient CR followed by home-based CR with mTechs led to significant improvement in exercise capacity as compared to outpatient CR without further formal CR. Supplying patients with mTechs may improve exercise capacity. To ensure that usage of and compliance with mTechs is optimal, a concentrated effort of CR staff has to be achieved. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented lack of patient support while away from institutional CR. Even though mTechs lend themselves as suitable assistants, evidence is lacking that they can fill this gap.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sensors (Basel)
                Sensors (Basel)
                sensors
                Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
                MDPI
                1424-8220
                24 December 2020
                January 2021
                : 21
                : 1
                : 65
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Digital Health and Prevention, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; florianmeinhart@ 123456gmx.at (F.M.); thomas.stuetz@ 123456dhp.lbg.ac.at (T.S.); m.sareban@ 123456salk.at (M.S.); tino.kulnik@ 123456dhp.lbg.ac.at (S.T.K.)
                [2 ]Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
                [3 ]Department of MultiMediaTechnology, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, 5412 Puch/Salzburg, Austria
                [4 ]University Institute of Sports Medicine, Prevention and Rehabilitation and Research Institute of Molecular Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
                [5 ]Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University & St George’s, University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: j.niebauer@ 123456salk.at ; Tel.: +43-(0)-57-2552-3200
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4900-5991
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5419-6713
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2811-9041
                Article
                sensors-21-00065
                10.3390/s21010065
                7795145
                33374322
                0ef751d3-f93d-4887-b453-fddd81f42aed
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 04 December 2020
                : 18 December 2020
                Categories
                Review

                Biomedical engineering
                cardiovascular diseases,telerehabilitation,telemedicine,therapeutics,exercise,smartphone

                Comments

                Comment on this article