BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Systematic Reviews
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 117065
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.117065
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (n = 16)
Ref.
Country/setting
Study design and focus
Trial/program name
Sample size (intervention/control)
Key participant characteristics
Intervention description
Follow-up duration
Primary outcomes assessed
mAFA-II program cluster (integrated care via ABC pathway)
Guo et al[23], 2020China; 40 centersCluster RCT; efficacy of integrated caremAFA-II3324 (1646/1678)Mean age 67-70 years; 38% femalemHealth-supported ABC pathway (risk scores, OAC guidance, education)Mean 262-291 daysComposite (stroke/TE, death, rehospitalization)
Romiti et al[24], 2023China; 40 centersPost-hoc analysis; win ratio methodmAFA-II3324(Subset of core trial population)ABC pathway (as in core trial)Mean 291 daysComposite outcome analyzed via win ratio
Yao et al[25], 2021China; 40 centersAncillary analysis; patients with multimorbiditymAFA-II1890 (subgroup with ≥ 2 comorbidities)Mean age 72-73 years; 34%-42% FemaleABC pathwayMean 419-457 daysComposite outcome, thromboembolism, bleeding
Guo et al[26], 2022China; 40 centersSubgroup analysis; patients ≥ 75 yearsmAFA-II1163 (subgroup ≥ 75 years)Mean age 827 ± 5.2 yearsABC pathwayMedian about 340-395 daysComposite outcome, rehospitalization
Guo et al[27], 2023China; 40 centersPost-hoc analysis; patients with heart failuremAFA-II714 (subgroup with HF)Mean age 727 ± 13.1 years; 40% FemaleABC pathwayMedian about 281-284 daysComposite outcome, bleeding, non-fatal CV events
Corica et al[28], 2025China; 40 centersPost-hoc analysis; latent class analysis (phenotypes)mAFA-II3324Mean age 685 ± 13.9 yearsABC pathwayMedian 295 daysInteraction between phenotypes and treatment effect
Guo et al[29], 2023China; 40 centersPost-hoc analysis; Sex-stratified outcomesmAFA-II3324 (2062 male/1262 fem ale)Mean age male: 67.5, female: 70.2 yearsABC pathway6 and 12 monthsComposite outcome stratified by sex
Guo et al[30], 2020China; 2 hospitalsAncillary study; dynamic bleeding riskmAFA (pilot/II)1,793 (intervention arm only)Mean age 640 ± 24.0 yearsDynamic HAS-BLED reassessment via appDynamic monitoring (up to 365 days)Change in high bleeding risk, incident bleeding
Guo et al[31], 2017China; 2 hospitalsPilot cluster RCT; feasibilitymAFA pilot209 (113/96)Mean age 67-71 yearsmAF app (management, self-care)3 monthsAdherence, quality of life, satisfaction
Independent trials
Yoon et al[32], 2024South Korea; MulticenterRCT; adherence via alertsADHERE-app498Mean age 657 years; 68% male (Edoxaban users)App with daily push alerts + BP/HR monitoring6 monthsAdherence (pill count)
Turakhia et al[33], 2021United States; 25 sitesRCT (terminated early); digital/human supportSmartADHERE139 enrolledMean age 65 ± 9.6 years; 30% female (Rivaroxaban users)App + text messaging + phone counseling6 months (planned)PDC
Caceres et al[34], 2020United States; single-centerRCT; ECG monitoring post-procedureiHEART238 (post-ablation/cardioversion)Mean age 613 years; 77% maleSmartphone ECG (Kardia) + motivational texts6 monthsQuality of life (AFEQT, etc.), symptom severity
Hsieh et al[35], 2021Taiwan; single-centerSingle-blind RCT; web-based managementWeb-based program231Mean age 731 ± 11.7 years; 50% maleWeb-based program (education, consultation)6 months (outcomes) + 2 years (readmission)Adherence, quality of life, readmission events
Xu et al[36], 2024China; 5 hospitalsRCT; app-based education and supportAlfalfa app113Mean age 617 ± 11.0 years; 62% maleAlfalfa app (education, remote consultation)12 monthsAdherence (MMAS-8), knowledge, satisfaction
Magnani et al[37], 2025United States; rural pennsylvaniaRCT; intervention for rural patientsRural AF intervention270 (rural cohort)Median age 731 years; 60% femaleRelational agent app + KardiaMobile monitor12 monthsAdherence (PDC), quality of life, healthcare utilization
Tran et al[38], 2022United States; single-centerRCT; Pill organizer + monitoringBOAT-OAR100 (Apixaban users)Mean age 708 ± 8.0 years; 50% femaleSmartphone ECG + pill organizerMedian 5.9 monthsMedication compliance (pill count), clinical events
Table 2 Oral anticoagulant adherence
Ref.
Intervention/trial name
Adherence metric
Follow-up
Key finding
Interpretation
Studies reporting a positive effect on adherence
Yoon et al[32], 2024ADHERE-app (Alerts + monitoring)Pill count (≥ 95% threshold)6 monthsProportion with adequate adherence (≥ 95%) significantly higher in intervention (73.9% vs 61.0%; P = 0.007)Intervention increased the likelihood of achieving high adherence
Hsieh et al[35], 2021Web-based integrated programMARS (self-report scale)6 monthsSignificantly greater improvement in adherence vs control over time (GEE analysis, P = 0.001)Sustained improvement in self-reported adherence
Xu et al[36], 2024Alfalfa app (education + consultation)MMAS-8 (self-report scale)3 monthsMedication compliance significantly higher at 1 and 3 months (all P < 0.05)Short-term improvement in self-reported adherence
Guo et al[31], 2017mAFA pilot (mAF app)3-item adherence estimator3 monthsDrug adherence significantly better at 1 and 3 months (all P < 0.05)Early improvement in adherence with integrated app
Magnani et al[37], 2025Rural AF intervention (agent + monitor)3-item self-report instrument4 and 8 monthsSelf-reported adherence significantly higher (OR = 1.89)Positive subjective effect, despite no objective difference
Guo et al[30], 2020mAFA-II (dynamic management)OAC usage/uptake12 monthsOAC use increased in intervention (63.4% to 70.2%) but decreased in control (P < 0.001)Intervention improved OAC persistence at a population level
Studies reporting no significant difference in objective adherence
Yoon et al[32], 2024ADHERE-app (alerts + monitoring)Pill count (continuous median)6 monthsNo difference in median adherence (98% vs 97.5%; P = 0.15).High baseline adherence in both groups limited improvement
Turakhia et al[33], 2021SmartADHERE (blended support)PDC6 monthsNo difference in mean PDC (0.86 vs 0.88; P = 0.62) or PDC ≥ 80%Exceptionally high adherence in control group (“ceiling effect”)
Tran et al[38], 2022BOAT-OAR (ECG + organizer)Pill Count (median)5.9 monthsNo difference in median compliance (100% vs 99.7%; P = 0.247)Near-perfect adherence in both groups
Magnani et al[37], 2025Rural AF intervention (agent + monitor)PDC12 monthsNo difference in 12-month PDC (median 0.97 both groups)Objective measure did not confirm self-reported benefits
Table 3 Impact of mobile health interventions on patient-reported outcomes
Ref.
Intervention/trial name
PRO domain and measurement tool
Follow-up
Key finding
Studies reporting significant improvements
Hsieh et al[35], 2021Web-based integrated programHRQoL: EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-VAS6 monthsSignificantly higher scores in intervention group at 3 and 6 months (e.g., EQ-5D, β = 0.19, P < 0.001 at 6 months)
Hsieh et al[35], 2021Web-based integrated programCoping: Brief COPE scale6 monthsSignificantly improved approach coping and reduced avoidance coping (P < 0.001)
Guo et al[31], 2017mAFA pilot trialHRQoL: EQ-5D-Y; satisfaction: ACTS3 monthsSignificantly increased QoL, reduced anxiety/depression, and higher satisfaction (all P < 0.05)
Xu et al[36], 2024Alfalfa app studySatisfaction: Treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication3 monthsScores for effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction significantly higher (P < 0.001)
Studies reporting no significant difference
Caceres et al[34], 2021iHEART study (ECG + texts)HRQoL: AFEQT, SF-36, EQ-5D6 monthsNo significant differences between groups. Clinically meaningful improvement observed in both arms
Magnani et al[37], 2025Rural AF interventionHRQoL: AFEQT, PROMIS-2912 monthsNo significant differences in disease-specific or general quality of life scores
Table 4 Impact of mobile health interventions on clinical events and healthcare utilization
Ref.
Intervention/trial name
Outcome metric
Result (intervention vs control)
Effect estimate (95%CI)
P value
Clinical efficacy and healthcare utilization
Guo et al[23], 2020mAFA-II trialPrimary composite (stroke/TE, death, rehospitalization)1.9% vs 6.0%HR 0.39 (0.22-0.67)< 0.001
Guo et al[23], 2020mAFA-II trialRehospitalization (any cause)1.2% vs 4.5%HR 0.32 (0.17-0.60)< 0.001
Romiti et al[24], 2023mAFA-II (win ratio)Composite (prioritizing death)Win ratio 2.78 (1.85-4.17)< 0.001
Yao et al[25], 2021mAFA-II (multimorbidity)Primary composite outcomeHR 0.37 (0.26-0.53)< 0.001
Hsieh et al[35], 2021Web-based programReadmission (2-year follow-up)11 vs 23 eventsOR 0.41 (0.18-0.93)0.03
Safety (bleeding and thromboembolism)
Yao et al[25], 2021mAFA-II (multimorbidity)Thromboembolism (stroke/TE)0.5% vs 2.9%HR 0.17 (0.05-0.51)0.002
Guo et al[23], 2020mAFA-II trialExtracranial bleeding1.5% vs 1.6%HR 0.95 (0.54-1.66)0.85
Guo et al[30], 2020mAFA-II (dynamic)Incident bleeding events (rate)Rate decreased over time (1.2% to 0.2%)< 0.001
Table 5 Mechanisms of action and feasibility of mobile health intervention
Ref.
Intervention/trial name
Process outcome domain
Key finding
Feasibility and engagement
Magnani et al[37], 2025Rural AF interventionIntervention fidelity: Median use of relational agent over 120 daysExcellent fidelity; participants used the agent a median of 84% of days
Guo et al., 2020[23]mAFA-II (dynamic risk)Communication fidelity: Frequency of patient/doctor messagesSignificant, sustained message frequency over 12 months (P < 0.001)
Hsieh et al[35], 2021Web-based programIntervention deliveryImplemented via face-to-face training to ensure user competency
Patient activation and knowledge
Xu et al[36], 2024Alfalfa app studyAnticoagulation knowledge (JAKQ)Knowledge significantly higher in app group at 1 and 3 months (e.g., 78.1% vs 25.0% at 3 months; P < 0.001)
Hsieh et al[35], 2021Web-based programCoping strategies (brief COPE scale)Significantly improved approach coping and reduced avoidance coping (P < 0.001)
Treatment optimization
Guo et al[23], 2020mAFA-II (dynamic risk)OAC treatment uptake/persistenceOAC use increased in intervention arm (63.4% to 70.2%) but decreased by 25% in usual care (P < 0.001)
Table 6 Risk of bias assessment
Ref.
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Overall
Guo et al[23], 2020Some concernsHighLowHighLowHigh
Romiti et al[24], 2023Some concernsHighLowHighLowHigh
Yao et al[25], 2021Some concernsHighLowHighSome concernsHigh
Guo et al[26], 2022Some concernsHighLowHighSome concernsHigh
Guo et al[27], 2023Some concernsHighLowHighSome concernsHigh
Corica et al[28], 2025Some concernsHighLowHighHighHigh
Guo et al[29], 2023Some concernsHighLowHighHighHigh
Guo et al[30], 2020No informationNo informationLowLowLowSome concerns
Guo et al[31], 2017Some concernsHighLowHighLowHigh
Yoon et al[32], 2024LowSome concernsSome concernsLowLowSome concerns
Turakhia et al[33], 2021LowSome concernsHighSome concernsLowHigh
Caceres et al[34], 2020LowSome concernsHighSome concernsSome concernsHigh
Hsieh et al[35], 2021LowSome concernsLowSome concernsLowSome concerns
Xu et al[36], 2024LowSome concernsLowSome concernsLowSome concerns
Magnani et al[37], 2025LowSome concernsLowSome concernsLowSome concerns
Tran et al[38], 2022LowSome concernsLowSome concernsLowSome concerns


Write to the Help Desk