3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

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

      The Effects of mHealth Interventions on Quality of Life, Anxiety, and Depression in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

      review-article
      , BSN 1 , , BSN 1 , , PhD, Prof Dr 1 ,
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      JMIR Publications
      mobile health, coronary heart disease, quality of life, anxiety, depression, meta-analysis, mobile phone

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Background

          Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death globally. In addition, 20% to 40% of the patients with CHD have comorbid mental health issues such as anxiety or depression, affecting the prognosis and quality of life (QoL). Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have been developed and are widely used; however, the evidence for the effects of mHealth interventions on QoL, anxiety, and depression in patients with CHD is currently ambiguous.

          Objective

          In this study, we aimed to assess the effects of mHealth interventions on QoL, anxiety, and depression in patients with CHD.

          Methods

          We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases from inception to August 12, 2023. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that involved patients with CHD who received mHealth interventions and that reported on QoL, anxiety, or depression outcomes. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies, ensuring a rigorous and methodologically sound analysis. Review Manager (desktop version 5.4; The Cochrane Collaboration) and Stata MP (version 17.0; StataCorp LLC) were used to conduct the meta-analysis. The effect size was calculated using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI.

          Results

          The meta-analysis included 23 studies (5406 participants in total) and showed that mHealth interventions significantly improved QoL in patients with CHD (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.72; Z=4.07; P<.001) as well as relieved their anxiety (SMD −0.46, 95% CI −0.83 to −0.08; Z=2.38; P=.02) and depression (SMD −0.34, 95% CI −0.56 to −0.12; Z=3.00; P=.003) compared to usual care. The subgroup analyses indicated a significant effect favoring the mHealth intervention on reducing anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to usual care, especially when (1) the intervention duration was ≥6 months ( P=.04 and P=.001), (2) the mHealth intervention was a simple one (only 1 mHealth intervention was used) ( P=.01 and P<.001), (3) it was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic ( P=.04 and P=.01), (4) it was implemented in low- or middle-income countries ( P=.01 and P=.02), (5) the intervention focused on mental health ( P=.01 and P=.007), and (6) adherence rates were high (≥90%; P=.03 and P=.002). In addition, comparing mHealth interventions to usual care, there was an improvement in QoL when (1) the mHealth intervention was a simple one ( P<.001), (2) it was implemented in low- or middle-income countries ( P<.001), and (3) the intervention focused on mental health ( P<.001).

          Conclusions

          On the basis of the existing evidence, mHealth interventions might be effective in improving QoL and reducing anxiety and depression in patients with CHD. However, large sample, high-quality, and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials are needed to provide further evidence.

          Trial Registration

          PROSPERO CRD42022383858; https://tinyurl.com/3ea2npxf

          Related collections

          Most cited references92

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

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

              The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                2024
                11 June 2024
                : 26
                : e52341
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Nursing Capital Medical University Beijing China
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Ying Wu helenywu@ 123456vip.163.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7036-3397
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6291-659X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8633-5404
                Article
                v26i1e52341
                10.2196/52341
                11200038
                38861710
                8715750c-d3a5-435b-a1c5-cf8e98cb802c
                ©Qiao Ling Hou, Le Yang Liu, Ying Wu. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.06.2024.

                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.

                History
                : 31 August 2023
                : 12 December 2023
                : 5 February 2024
                : 22 March 2024
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                mobile health,coronary heart disease,quality of life,anxiety,depression,meta-analysis,mobile phone

                Comments

                Comment on this article