This AHA scientific statement reviews the evidence and provides recommendations for promoting self-care in patients with heart failure to improve outcomes and reduce healthcare utilization.
Supports self-care promotion in HF management; leaves open optimal implementation across diverse settings.
S elf-care is advocated as a method of improving outcomes from heart failure (HF), the final common pathway for several prevalent illnesses, including hypertension and coronary artery disease.HF is widespread in aging populations across the world. 1 The burden of HF is manifested in poor quality of life (QOL) 2,3 and early mortality. 4In addition, there are Ͼ3 million ambulatory care and emergency department visits 5 and well over 1 million hospitalizations for HF in the United States annually, 6 which contributes to the exorbitant costs associated with HF.Much of this healthcare utilization is thought to be preventable if patients engage in consistent self-care. 7,8his scientific statement seeks to highlight concepts and evidence important to the understanding and promotion of self-care in persons with HF.Specifically, the document describes what is known about (1) the self-care behaviors required of HF patients, (2) factors that make self-care challenging for patients, (3) interventions that promote selfcare, and (4) the effect of self-care on HF outcomes.The review ends with evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and direction for future research.The American Heart Association makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the writing panel.Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riegel et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: