Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40022234›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025

Methods for assessing exercise fidelity in unsupervised home-based cardiovascular rehabilitation: a scoping review.

Mohammad Jarallah, Thomas M Withers, Sheeba Rosewilliam, Afroditi Stathi, Colin J Greaves

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mohammad JarallahSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. m.jarallah@mu.edu.sa.
Thomas M WithersSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Sheeba RosewilliamSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Afroditi StathiSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Colin J GreavesSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome-based cardiac rehabilitation is increasingly popular for patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, this mode of rehabilitation involves unsupervised exercise, making it challenging to assess, correct, and monitor exercise fidelity (the extent to which the patient performs the exercise intended by the intervention provider). This review aimed to identify the range, validity, and acceptability of measures for assessing exercise fidelity in unsupervised, home-based cardiovascular rehabilitation.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, and PsycINFO for studies published between 2000 and 2024 to identify observational studies, trials, and protocols published in English with a home-based cardiovascular rehabilitation intervention and at least one measure of exercise fidelity (e.g., adherence to the intended frequency, intensity, time, type, safety, progression/regression). Two reviewers selected eligible studies and extracted data, including study characteristics, exercise components, adherence definition, adherence measures, and data on measurement validity or acceptability. We conducted a narrative synthesis using a comprehensive definition of exercise fidelity, which evolved as the analysis progressed.

resultsForty-six articles describing 41 studies were included. Exercise intensity was the most commonly measured fidelity component (38/41 studies), followed by exercise frequency (32/41 studies). Exercise intensity was mostly assessed by wearable devices (28/41 studies). Frequency of exercise was most commonly assessed subjectively using a self-reported exercise log or diary, but also (objectively) using wearable devices. Exercise quantity was most commonly assessed (in terms of time or duration) by self-reported exercise logs, diaries and wearable devices, or (in terms of steps or distance) mostly by wearable devices (pedometers, other step activity monitors). Safety was only assessed in 12/41 studies. No studies assessed progression or regression of exercise, quality of exercise (accuracy of movement) or the appropriateness of progression or regression.

conclusionsMost studies to date have conceptualised exercise fidelity or adherence narrowly, ignoring important elements of the initial exercise prescription and many have relied on non-validated self-report measures. We present a comprehensive framework for assessing exercise fidelity, which may be useful for designing more robust assessments of exercise fidelity in home-based rehabilitation programmes.

Indexed as

Adherence interventionsBehavior and behavior mechanismsCardiac RehabilitationCardiovascular diseasesExerciseExercise AdherenceExercise FidelityExercise TherapyHome-based ExerciseTreatment adherence and compliance

Identifiers

PMID40022234
PMCPMC11871813

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.