Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Heart Failure to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map of Randomized Controlled Trials

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Santero M, Song Y, Beltran J, Medina-Aedo M, Canelo-Aybar C] Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain. [Valli C] Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain. Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Barcelona, Spain. [Salas-Gama K] Direcció de Qualitat, Processos i Innovació, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2024-02-20T12:47:34Z

2024-02-20T12:47:34Z

2024-01-24



Abstract

Heart failure; Self-management interventions


Insuficiencia cardíaca; Intervenciones de autogestión


Insuficiència cardíaca; Intervencions d'autogestió


Self-management interventions (SMIs) may enhance heart failure (HF) outcomes and address challenges associated with disease management. This study aims to review randomized evidence and identify knowledge gaps in SMIs for adult HF patients. Within the COMPAR-EU project, from 2010 to 2018, we conducted searches in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. We performed a descriptive analysis using predefined categories and developed an evidence map of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found 282 RCTs examining SMIs for HF patients, comparing two to four interventions, primarily targeting individual patients (97%) globally (34 countries, only 31% from an European country). These interventions involved support techniques such as information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), often through a mix of in-person and remote sessions (43%). Commonly assessed outcomes included quality of life, hospital admissions, mortality, exercise capacity, and self-efficacy. Few studies have focused on lower socio-economic or minority groups. Nurses (68%) and physicians (30%) were the primary providers, and most studies were at low risk of bias in generating a random sequence for participant allocation; however, the reporting was noticeably unclear of methods used to conceal the allocation process. Our analysis has revealed prevalent support techniques and delivery methods while highlighting methodological challenges. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers striving to optimize SMIs for individuals living with HF.


This research was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 754936.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

MDPI

Related items

Healthcare;12(3)

https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12030302

info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/754936

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)