Why the study?
Caregivers of persons with heart failure navigate complex care plans, yet support strategies often focus solely on meeting the needs of patients.
Does a multi-component strengths-building Caregiver Support intervention improve quality of life, caregiver burden, and self-efficacy in caregivers of persons with heart failure?
Does a multi-component strengths-building Caregiver Support intervention improve quality of life, caregiver burden, and self-efficacy in caregivers of persons with heart failure?
A remote, nurse-facilitated strengths-building intervention is feasible and shows promising initial effect sizes for improving quality of life, reducing burden, and increasing self-efficacy among heart failure caregivers.
Demonstrates feasibility of remote nurse-led support for HF caregivers; leaves open efficacy on burden and QoL, warranting larger trials.
Caregivers of persons with heart failure (HF) navigate complex care plans, yet support strategies often focus solely on meeting the needs of patients. We conducted a randomized waitlist control trial ( N = 38) to test the feasibility and gauge initial effect size of the Caregiver Support intervention on quality of life, caregiver burden, and self-efficacy among HF caregivers. The intervention includes up to five remote, nurse-facilitated sessions. Components address: holistic caregiver assessment, life purpose, action planning, resources, and future planning. Caregivers were 93.3% female, 60% White, and 63.3% spouses. Average age was 59.4. Participants who completed the intervention reported high satisfaction and acceptability of activities. Between-group effect sizes at 16 and 32 weeks suggest improvement in quality of life (mental health) (.88; 1.08), caregiver burden (.31; .37), and self-efficacy (.63; .74). Caregivers found Caregiver Support acceptable and feasible. Findings contribute evidence that this intervention can enhance caregiver outcomes. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT04090749.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saylor et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: