Practical Utility and Factors Driving Use of Virtual Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Patient-Centric and Disabilities View to Innovation

1. Gélinas-Bronsard, D., Mortenson, W.B., Ahmed, S., Guay, C., Auger, C.: Co-construction of an Internet-based intervention for older assistive technology users and their family caregivers: stakeholders’ perceptions. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 14, 602–611 (2019)

   Google Scholar 

2. Matthew-Maich, N.: et al.: Designing, implementing, and evaluating mobile health technologies for managing chronic conditions in older adults: a scoping review. JMIR mHealth uHealth 4, e29 (2016). https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.5127

3. Gris, F., et al.: Personalized technological support for informal caregivers of older people with dementia: a co-design approach involving potential end users and healthcare professionals in three focus groups in Italy. Healthcare (Switzerland) 11, 2640 (2023)

   Google Scholar 

4. Melles, M., Albayrak, A., Goossens, R.: Innovating health care: key characteristics of human-centered design. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 33, 37–44 (2021)

   Article  Google Scholar 

5. Sumner, J., Chong, L.S., Bundele, A., Wei Lim, Y.: Co-designing technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Gerontologist 61, E395–E409 (2021)

   Google Scholar 

6. Walden, A., Garvin, L., Smerek, M., Johnson, C.: User-centered design principles in the development of clinical research tools. Clin. Trials 17, 703–711 (2020)

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. Fischer, B., Peine, A., Östlund, B., Heyn, P.C.: The importance of user involvement: a systematic review of involving older users in technology design. Gerontologist 60, E513–E523 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz163

8. Kumar, A.R., Cluff, K., McLeroy, T.: Is remote human factors testing an acceptable approach for human factors validation. Proc. Int. Symp. Hum. Factors Ergon. Health Care 10, 152–156 (2021)

   Article  Google Scholar 

9. Mclaughlin, A.C., Drews, F.A.: Evaluating medical devices remotely: current methods and potential innovations. Hum. Factors 62(7), 1041–1060 (2020)

   Google Scholar 

10. Bitkina, O.V., Kim, H.K., Park, J.: Usability and user experience of medical devices: an overview of the current state, analysis methodologies, and future challenges. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 76, 102932 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102932

11. Grace, S.L., Turk-Adawi, K., Santiago de Araújo Pio, C., Alter, D.A.: Ensuring cardiac rehabilitation access for the majority of those in need: a call to action for Canada. Can. J. Cardiol. 32, S358–S364 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

12. Moulson, N., et al.: Cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 era: guidance on implementing virtual care. Can. J. Cardiol. 36, 1317–1321 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

13. Abascal, J., Azevedo, L.: LNCS 4554 - Fundamentals of Inclusive HCI Design. LNCS, vol. 4554 (2007). http://www.idcnet.info/home, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_1

14. Keates, S., Kozloski, J., Varker, P.: LNCS 5614 - Cognitive Impairments, HCI and Daily Living. LNCS, vol. 5614 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02707-9_42

15. Prior, S.: HCI methods for including adults with disabilities in the design of CHAMPION. In: Conference: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2010 2174 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753878

16. Friedman, C., Vanpuymbrouck, L.: Telehealth use by persons with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Telerehabil. 13, e6402 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

17. Statistics Canada. Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories: Interactive Dashboard (2022). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2022015-eng.htm

18. Government of Canada. Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Risk Factors among Canadians aged 65 years and older (2020). https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/diseases-conditions/prevalence-chronic-disease-risk-factors-canadians-aged-65-years-older.html

19. Filate, W., Johansen, H., Kennedy, C., Tu, J.: Regional variations in cardiovascular mortality in Canada. Can. J. Cardiol. 19, 1241–1248 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

20. Cotie, L.M., et al.: A social-ecological perspective of the perceived barriers and facilitators to virtual education in cardiac rehabilitation: a mixed-methods approach. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev. 42, 183–189 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. Ganeshan, S., et al.: Clinical outcomes and qualitative perceptions of in-person, hybrid, and virtual cardiac rehabilitation. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev. 42, 338–346 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

22. Tadas, S., Coyle, D.: Barriers to and facilitators of technology in cardiac rehabilitation and self-management: systematic qualitative grounded theory review. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, e18025 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2196/18025

23. Eraslan, S., Yaneva, V., Yesilada, Y., Harper, S.: Web users with autism: eye tracking evidence for differences. Behav. Inf. Technol. 38, 678–700 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

24. Eraslan, S., Yesilada, Y., Yaneva, V., Ha, L.A.: “Keep it simple!”: an eye-tracking study for exploring complexity and distinguishability of web pages for people with autism. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 20, 69–84 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

25. Khadanga, S., Savage, P.D., Gaalema, D.E., Ades, P.A.: Predictors of cardiac rehabilitation participation: opportunities to increase enrollment. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev. 41, 322–327 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

26. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2022). https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2022.html

Download references