Evidence Hub

Digital Health Technology for Improving Physical Function in Adults With Chronic Heart Failure: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Meng Z, Li J, Yang J, Lin Y, Zhang Q, Wei L, Zhou X

Journal of medical Internet research, 2026

3,441 participants

Abstract

Background: Chronic heart failure (CHF) significantly impairs physical function and quality of life. Although exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation represents a primary therapeutic strategy, participation rates remain low due to logistical barriers. Digital health technologies (DHTs) offer a promising alternative to deliver home-based interventions. However, evidence regarding their specific impact on functional capacity versus daily physical behavior remains inconsistent.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DHTs on physical activity and health outcomes in patients with CHF and to identify the intervention characteristics that drive physiological improvement.

Methods: We searched Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed, Web of Science, and Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice (JBI EBP) database for randomized controlled trials published between August 2015 and July 2025. Studies comparing DHT interventions with usual care or nondigital active controls in adults with CHF were included. Primary outcomes were functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk distance), cardiorespiratory fitness (peak oxygen uptake), and daily step count. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire). Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,441 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free