Impact of nurse‐led education on the prognosis of heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Chun Tian,Jian Zhang,Junmei Rong,Wenhui Ma,Hui Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12852
IF: 3.384
2023-06-20
International Nursing Review
Abstract:Aim To perform a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the effect of nurse‐led education on death, readmission, and quality of life in patients with heart failure. Background The evidence of the effectiveness of nurse‐led education in heart failure patients from randomized controlled trials is limited, and the results are inconsistent. Therefore, the impact of nurse‐led education remains poorly understood, and more rigorous studies are needed. Introduction Heart failure is a syndrome associated with high morbidity, mortality, and hospital readmission. Authorities advocate nurse‐led education to raise awareness of disease progression and treatment planning, as this could improve patients' prognosis. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to May 2022 to retrieve relevant studies. The primary outcomes were readmission rate (all‐cause or HF‐related) and all‐cause mortality. The secondary outcome was quality of life, evaluated by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), EuroQol‐5D (EQ‐5D), and visual analog scale for quality of life. Results Although there was no significant association between the nursing intervention and all‐cause readmissions [RR (95% CI) = 0.91 (0.79, 1.06), P = 0.231], the nursing intervention decreased HF‐related readmission by 25% [RR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.58, 0.99), P = 0.039]. The e nursing intervention reduced all‐cause readmission or mortality as a composite endpoint by 13% [RR (95% CI) = 0.87 (0.76, 0.99), P = 0.029]. In the subgroup analysis, we found that home nursing visits reduced HF‐related readmissions [RR (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.37, 0.84), P = 0.005]. In addition, the nursing intervention improved the quality of life in MLHFQ and EQ‐5D [standardized mean differences (SMD) (95% CI) = 3.38 (1.10, 5.66), 7.12 (2.54, 11.71), respectively]. Discussion The outcome variation between studies may be due to reporting methods, comorbidities, and medication management education. Patient outcomes and quality of life may also vary between different educational approaches. Limitations of this meta‐analysis stem from the incomplete reporting of information from the original studies, the small sample size, and the inclusion of English language literature only. Conclusion Nurse‐led education programs significantly impact HF‐related readmission rates, all‐cause readmission, and mortality rates in patients with HF. Implications for nursing practice and nursing policies The results suggest stakeholders should allocate resources to develop nurse‐led education programs for HF patients.
nursing