Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Heart transplant recipients show high trust in clinician-guided digital tools for health monitoringHeart Transplant Patients Show Interest in Digital Health Tools

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that patients prefer clinician-guided digital tools over autonomous app-based guidance for monitoring.

This cross-sectional survey evaluated the readiness, trust, and perceived usefulness of digital health tools among 93 adult heart transplant recipients. The study assessed dimensions including smartphone usage, wearable device adoption, and patient concerns regarding data privacy and automated monitoring.

Key findings indicate that while smartphone use was common (85/93), wearable device use was limited (18/93). A majority of patients (69/92) agreed technology could improve health monitoring, and 69/93 reported that digital tools are more useful and reliable when accompanied by clinician guidance. Conversely, a minority expressed discomfort with device-led monitoring (29/93) or concerns regarding data misuse (44/93). Notably, daily technology use was associated with less medication-related insecurity (p=0.009) and less discomfort with monitoring (p=0.022).

The authors note that p-values were interpreted as hypothesis-generating due to multiple comparisons. The findings suggest that a staged, human-centered approach is preferable for integrating digital health into heart transplant follow-up care. Because this was a cross-sectional survey, results indicate associations rather than causal relationships.

A survey of 93 adult heart transplant recipients looked at how patients feel about using digital technology for their care. The study found that while most patients use smartphones, very few currently use wearable devices. However, a majority of patients agreed that technology could help monitor their health more effectively.

Patients reported feeling more comfortable with digital tools when they were used in combination with clinician guidance rather than as a replacement for doctors. While some patients expressed concerns about data privacy or discomfort with device-led monitoring, most supported using their data for clinical research and valued having the ability to withdraw consent at any time.

This was a small survey, which means it shows links between technology use and patient feelings rather than proving that one causes the other. The results suggest that adding digital tools to heart transplant care should be done carefully, focusing on keeping doctors involved in the process to help patients feel more secure.

What this means for you:
Most heart transplant patients favor using digital tools when they are integrated with professional medical guidance.

Common questions

Do heart transplant patients trust digital health technology?

Most patients felt that digital tools were more useful and reliable when used with clinician guidance. While a minority reported some discomfort with device-led monitoring, the majority of participants supported using their data for clinical research and valued having revocable consent.

How do patients feel about doctors versus apps?

The survey found that a majority of heart transplant recipients preferred getting advice from their physicians rather than relying solely on app-based guidance. The study suggests that technology should be used to support, not replace, the role of the doctor.

Does using technology help patients feel more secure?

The survey found an association between daily technology use and lower levels of medication-related insecurity. Additionally, those who used technology daily reported less discomfort with monitoring. These results are from a small survey and show links rather than certain causes.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
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. 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. 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, p-values were interpreted as hypothesis-generating. 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%, p = 0.023). Medication-related insecurity and preference for physician advice varied across age groups (p = 0.029 and p = 0.030, respectively). Greater daily technology use was associated with less medication-related insecurity and less discomfort with monitoring (p = 0.009 and p = 0.022). 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.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.