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
Marilina Santero,Yang Song,Jessica Beltran,Melixa Medina-Aedo,Carlos Canelo-Aybar,Claudia Valli,Claudio Rocha,Montserrat León-García,Karla Salas-Gama,Chrysoula Kaloteraki,Ena Niño de Guzmán,Marta Ballester,Ana Isabel González-González,Rune Poortvliet,Marieke van der Gaag,Cristina Spoiala,Pema Gurung,Fabienne Willemen,Iza Cools,Julia Bleeker,Angelina Kancheva,Julia Ertl,Tajda Laure,Ivana Kancheva,Kevin Pacheco-Barrios,Jessica Hanae Zafra-Tanaka,Sofia Tsokani,Areti Angeliki Veroniki,Georgios Seitidis,Christos Christogiannis,Katerina Maria Kontouli,Oliver Groene,Rosa Sunol,Carola Orrego,Monique Heijmans,Pablo Alonso-Coello
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12030302
2024-01-24
Health Care
Abstract: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.
health care sciences & services,health policy & services