Informal caregivers’ engagement with patient data is becoming increasingly central to CSCW and HCI research on health management. Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) technologies generate lifestyle and well-being data that support patients and their families in recovery management, yet informal caregivers’ roles in CTR remain underexplored. Recreational athletes in rehabilitation are an especially under-researched group, despite their and their support system’s unique needs. Focusing on caregivers of recreational athletes, we conducted interviews with ten participants and used six visual scenarios of a dyadic CTR system to explore their perspectives on data and information co-participation. Caregivers reported that co-participation could strengthen dyadic coping and management but emphasized the need to balance important trade-offs. We provide design recommendations for dyadic CTR systems that balance care needs and preferences, promoting caregiver involvement in a supportive, non-supervisory role. We contribute to CSCW research by proposing a conceptual shift in technology-mediated rehabilitation care: positioning caregiver-inclusive CTR systems as negotiation tools that support boundary work and balance competing care values.

Background: Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) interventions can provide accessible and affordable remote rehabilitation services. However, as cardiac rehabilitation (CR) primarily targets inactive patients, little is known about the experiences with CR of highly active patients (ie, recreational athletes or, simply, athletes) with established coronary artery disease. Consequently, existing CTR interventions do not address the specific needs of the athletic subpopulation. Understanding the needs and values of athletes is crucial for designing meaningful CTR interventions that enhance user acceptance and engagement, thereby facilitating effective rehabilitation for this patient subgroup. Objective: This study aimed to inform the design of technologies that facilitate CTR for athletes. We intended to identify athletes' values related to CR, including health and sports tracking, as well as high-level requirements for technologies that can facilitate the CTR of athletes according to the identified values. Methods: We used value-sensitive design with a human-centric design approach to elicit design requirements for CTR that can serve athletes with established coronary artery disease. To identify athletes' values, we conducted 25 value-oriented semistructured interviews with 15 athletic patients and 10 health care professionals involved in CR programs. In a second phase, we conducted 6 card-sorting focus group sessions with 13 patients and 7 health care professionals to identify desired CTR features. Finally, we derived high-level CTR technology requirements connected to the athletes' needs and values. Results: We defined 12 athlete values divided into 3 categories: body centric, care centric, and data and technology centric. We clustered findings from the card-sorting activity into CTR technology requirements, such as remotely monitored sport-specific training and training data representations next to clinical limitations, and paired them with corresponding values. Conclusions: Athletes have distinct values and health goals in CR compared to general populations targeted by CTR interventions. Designing patient-centric CTR interventions that address these needs is crucial to support optimal recovery, safe return to sports, and adherence to CTR technologies in the home environment.