ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Patient trust and readiness for digital health-enabled precision care after heart transplantation: a real-world survey.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health may support continuous, personalized follow-up after heart transplantation; however, successful implementation depends on patient trust, digital confidence, and acceptable data-governance arrangements. Objective: To characterize digital access, perceived usefulness, trust, privacy concerns, and implementation readiness among adult heart transplant recipients, and to explore differences across demographic and technology-use subgroups. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, consecutive adult heart transplant recipients attending routine follow-up at a tertiary center completed a 43-item questionnaire developed through literature-informed item generation, multidisciplinary expert review, and pilot testing in 5 transplant recipients. Responses were summarized descriptively. Exploratory subgroup comparisons used Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests, as appropriate. As multiple comparisons were exploratory, Results: Ninety-three recipients participated; 61 (65.6%) were male and 74 (79.6%) were older than 45 years. Smartphone use was common (85/93, 91.4%), whereas wearable use remained limited (18/93, 19.4%). Most respondents agreed that technology could improve health monitoring (69/92, 75.0%), and 69/93 (74.2%) considered digital tools more useful and reliable when incorporating guidance from their treating clinicians. Nevertheless, 29/93 (31.2%) expressed discomfort with device-led monitoring, and 49/92 (53.3%) preferred physician advice over app-based guidance. Concerns about data misuse were reported by 44/93 (47.3%), although 72/93 (77.4%) supported data use for clinical research and 69/93 (74.2%) valued revocable consent. Perceived usefulness differed significantly by sex (males 83.3% vs. females 59.4%, Conclusions: Heart transplant recipients demonstrate substantial but conditional readiness for digital health adoption. Successful implementation appears to depend not only on access, but also on clinician integration, task-specific confidence, and transparent, patient-controlled data governance. These findings support a staged, human-centered implementation approach rather than technology substitution for established clinical relationships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.