Evidence mapPaperPMID 40577640Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025

Adherence to eHealth Interventions Among Patients With Heart Failure: Scoping Review.

Arno Joachim Gingele, Bianca Steiner, Bettina Zippel-Schultz, Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Arno Joachim GingeleDepartment of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 31 043 387 6543.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4184-9866
Bianca SteinerGerman Foundation for the Chronically Ill, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6762-8973
Bettina Zippel-SchultzGerman Foundation for the Chronically Ill, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4791-7222
Hans-Peter Brunner-La RoccaDepartment of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 31 043 387 6543.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4356-8566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a significant global health challenge, requiring innovative management strategies like eHealth. However, the success of eHealth in managing HF heavily relies on patient adherence, an area currently not sufficiently investigated despite its critical role in ensuring the effectiveness of this approach. Objective: This review was initiated to gather evidence on adherence to eHealth devices among patients with HF. The goal was to survey the current state of adherence, pinpoint factors that promote successful engagement, and identify gaps needing further research. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to gather quantitative data on eHealth engagement from relevant clinical HF studies indexed in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO up to February 2025. Descriptive characteristics of the publications were extracted, and generalized mixed model analyses were used to identify eHealth characteristics affecting patient adherence. Results: Our analysis included 70 studies, primarily using noninvasive eHealth interventions with wearables (n=51), followed by wearables only (n=8), noninvasive eHealth interventions without wearables (n=6), invasive devices (n=3), and telephone support (n=2). The median number of patients per study was 49 (IQR 20-139), and the median follow-up duration was 180 (IQR 84-360) days. Variability in reporting and definitions of eHealth adherence was noted. In total, 20 studies assessed adherence trends, with 13 noting a decline, 6 observing no change, and 1 reporting an increase over time. Factors influencing adherence were explored in 29 studies; 7 indicated higher adherence with increasing patient age, 2 showed a negative correlation, and 9 detected no age-related differences. No gender differences were found in the 10 publications that reported on gender, and 9 studies found no association between adherence and the New York Heart Association classification, while 1 noted higher adherence in patients with more severe symptoms. In 35 (50%) studies, adherence was quantified as the percentage of mean days the intervention was used, yielding a median adherence rate of 78% (IQR 61%-86%; range 31%-98%). No significant correlations were found between adherence rates and the number of eHealth device users, type of intervention, follow-up duration, number of parameters monitored, or data collection frequency. Conclusions: Reporting and definitions of patient adherence in HF studies are incomplete and inconsistent. Trends indicate a decrease in eHealth use over time. Customizing devices to meet patient needs may help mitigate this issue. Future research should offer a more detailed description of adherence to pinpoint factors that enhance patient adherence with eHealth technologies.

Indexed as

Heart FailurePatient ComplianceTelemedicineHumanseHealthheart failureinvasive devicesmixed modelpatient adherencequantitative datareviewtelephone supportwearables

Identifiers

PMID40577640
PMCPMC12227154

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.