How was remote technology accepted among cardiac rehabilitees in outpatient self-rehabilitation context?

References

• WHO. Cardiovascular diseases. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds).
   Google Scholar
• American Heart Association. Cardiovascular disease: a costly burden for America. 2017. Available from: https://www.heart.org/-/media/files/get-involved/advocacy/burden-report-consumer-report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Salzwedel A, Jensen K, Rauch B, et al. Effectiveness of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation in coronary artery disease patients treated according to contemporary evidence based medicine: update of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS-II). Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(16):1756–1774. doi:10.1177/2047487320905719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laukkanen J. Cardiac rehabilitation: why is it an underused therapy? Eur Heart J. 2015;36(24):1500–1501. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotseva K, Wood D, De Bacquer D. Determinants of participation and risk factor control according to attendance in cardiac rehabilitation programmes in coronary patients in Europe: EUROASPIRE IV survey. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(12):1242–1251. doi:10.1177/2047487318781359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor R, Dalal H, McDonagh S. The role of cardiac rehabilitation in improving cardiovascular outcomes. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022;19(3):180–194. doi:10.1038/s41569-021-00611-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakayama A, Takayama N, Kobayashi M, et al. Remote cardiac rehabilitation is a good alternative of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation in the COVID-19 era. Environ Health Prev Med. 2020;25(1):48. doi:10.1186/s12199-020-00885-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vos C, Li X, Van Vlaenderen I, et al. Participating or not in a cardiac rehabilitation programme: factors influencing a patient’s decision. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20(2):341–348. Apr doi:10.1177/2047487312437057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kela. Information package: rehabilitation. [cited 2022 Sept 16]. https://tietotarjotin.kela.fi/en/information-package/2705424/information-package-rehabilitation
   Google Scholar
• Kela. Cardiac rehabilitation course for adults. [cited 2023 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.kela.fi/heart-disease-rehabilitation-adults
   Google Scholar
• Salminen A, Hiekkala S, editors. 2019. Kokemuksia etäkuntoutuksesta. Kelan etäkuntoutushankkeen tuloksia [Experiences of remote rehabilitation. Results of Kela’s remote rehabilitation project]. Kelan tutkimus: Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Hakala S, Kivistö H, Paajanen T, et al. Effectiveness of distance technology in promoting physical activity in cardiovascular disease rehabilitation: cluster randomized controlled trial, a pilot study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;8(2):e20299. doi:10.2196/20299.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lahtio H, Heinonen A, Paajanen T, et al. The added value of remote technology in cardiac rehabilitation on physical function, anthropometrics, and quality of life: cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e42455. doi:10.2196/42455.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anttila M, Kivistö H, Piirainen A, et al. Cardiac rehabilitees’ technology experiences before remote rehabilitation: qualitative study using a grounded theory approach. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2):e10985. doi:10.2196/10985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anttila M, Soderlund A, Paajanen T, et al. Biopsychosocial profiles of patients with cardiac disease in remote rehabilitation processes: mixed methods grounded theory approach. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;8(4):e16864. doi:10.2196/16864.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anttila M, Söderlund A, Sjögren T. Patients’ experiences of the complex trust-building process within digital cardiac rehabilitation. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0247982. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakala S, Rintala A, Immonen J, et al. Effectiveness of physical activity-promoting technology-based distance interventions compared to usual care. Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53(6):953–967. doi:10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04585-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravanne A, Rintala A, Hakala S, et al. Etäteknologian vaikuttavuus sydänkuntoutujien fyysiseen aktiivisuuteen [The effectiveness of distance technology on physical activity of cardiac rehabilitees]. In: Rintala A, Hakala S, Sjögren T, editors. Etäteknologian vaikuttavuus liikunnallisessa kuntoutuksessa [The effectiveness of distance technology in physical activity promoting rehabilitation]. Vantaa: Ewerko; 2017. p. 139–157.
   Google Scholar
• Rintala A, Hakala S, Paltamaa J, et al. Effectiveness of technology-based distance physical rehabilitation interventions on physical activity and walking in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(4):373–387. doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1260649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buys R, Claes J, Walsh D, et al. Cardiac patients show high interest in technology enabled cardiovascular rehabilitation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):95. doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0329-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall A, Dodd V, Harris A, et al. Heart failure patients’ perceptions and use of technology to manage disease symptoms. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(4):324–331. doi:10.1089/tmj.2013.0146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–340. doi:10.2307/249008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjögren T. The usability and effectiveness of connecting technology on physical and psychosocial functioning of cardiovascular disease rehabilitees in usual rehabilitation. ISRCTN registry. 2016. ISRCTN61225589. doi:10.1186/ISRCTN61225589.
   Google Scholar
• American Heart Association. How much physical activity do you need? 2018. Available from: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/aha-recs-for-physical-activity-infographic.
   Google Scholar
• Kela. Aikuisen sydänkuntoutuskurssi. Kelan kuntoutuksen palvelukuvaus, harkinnanvarainen kuntoutus [Cardiac rehabilitation course for adults: Kela’s rehabilitation service description, discretionary rehabilitation]. [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.kela.fi/documents/20124/410362/sydanrekku-palvelukuvaus.pdf/f084a1f8-e26d-10bc-4388-71458aa12dd6.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Davis F. A theorethical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;39(2):273–315. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shroff R, Deneen C, Ng E. Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. AJET. 2011;27(4):600–618. doi:10.14742/ajet.940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmad B, Ahlan A. Reliability and validity of a questionnaire to evaluate diabetic patients’ intention to adopt health information technology: a pilot study. J Theor Appl Inf Technol. 2015;72:253–264.
   Google Scholar
• Rosner B, Glynn RJ, Lee MT. Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired comparisons of clustered data. Biometrics. 2006;62(1):185–192. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00389.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte L. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–1768. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakala S, Rintala A, Immonen J, et al. Effectiveness of technology-based distance interventions promoting physical activity: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Rehabil Med. 2017;49(2):97–105. doi:10.2340/16501977-2195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shields G, Wells A, Doherty P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review. Heart. 2018;104(17):1403–1410. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T, editors. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich: Age Information Publishing; 2006.p. 307–337.
   Google Scholar
• Ajibade P. Technology acceptance model limitations and criticisms: exploring the practical applications and use in technology-related studies, mixed-method, and qualitative researches. Libr Philos Practice e-J. 2018; 1941:1–14. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1941
   Google Scholar
• Hellstén T, Arokoski J, Sjögren T, et al. The current state of remote physiotherapy in Finland: cross-sectional web-based questionnaire study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;9(2):e35569. PMID: 35609305 doi:10.2196/35569.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar