Key result
Dyadic active self-care links to ~10-point better QoL scores versus dependent or passive profiles.
Why the study?
Chronic heart failure requires effective dyadic self-care management, but the longitudinal relationship between distinct dyadic self-care profiles and quality of life trajectories remains unclear.
How do distinct dyadic self-care profiles affect quality of life trajectories in chronic heart failure patient-caregiver dyads?
Cohort (n=330)
How do distinct dyadic self-care profiles affect quality of life trajectories in chronic heart failure patient-caregiver dyads?
Absolute Event Rate: 67.6% vs 77.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
Active dyadic self-care profiles are associated with better quality of life trajectories for both chronic heart failure patients and their caregivers compared to passive or dependent profiles.
Supports dyadic self-care research in HF; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before clinical adoption.
Background Chronic heart failure requires effective dyadic self-care management, yet the longitudinal relationship between distinct dyadic self-care profiles and quality of life trajectories remains unclear. This study aimed to identify distinct self-care profiles in chronic heart failure patient-caregiver dyads and examine their associations with quality of life trajectories from hospitalization to three months post-discharge. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled 330 patient-caregiver dyads with chronic heart failure. Data were collected at hospitalization, one month, and three months post-discharge via the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index and the Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care of Heart Failure Index for dyadic self-care, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire for patient quality of life, and the Family Caregiver Quality of Life scale for caregiver quality of life. Latent class analysis was used to identify dyadic self-care profiles, and generalized estimating equations were employed to examine longitudinal associations. Results Latent class analysis revealed three distinct dyadic self-care profiles: dyadic dependent (23.94%), dyadic passive (49.39%), and dyadic active (26.67%). Using generalized estimating equations, we found that at 3 months post-discharge, patients in the Dyadic Active group had a significantly lower total Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (67.6, indicating better quality of life, than did those in the Dependent (77.6, P < 0.001) and Passive (77.1, P < 0.001) groups. Caregivers in the Dyadic Active group maintained stable Family Caregiver Quality of Life scale scores over time (P = 0.210), whereas those in the other two groups experienced significant decreases (P < 0.001). Conclusions Distinct self-care profiles are associated with significantly different quality of life trajectories for chronic heart failure patients and their caregivers. These findings underscore the necessity for profile-specific interventions tailored to the unique characteristics of each dyad to mitigate quality of life deterioration. Clinical trial number Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in chronic heart failure (n=330). Dyadic active self-care profile vs. Dyadic dependent and dyadic passive profiles was evaluated on Total Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (p=<0.001). The dyadic active self-care profile was associated with significantly better patient quality of life scores (67.6) at 3 months compared to dependent (77.6) and passive (77.1) profiles (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: