Key result
Motivational Interviewing did not improve caregiver contribution to self-care or preparedness, but increased caregiver self-efficacy at 9 months (MD 8.36; 95% CI 3.13-13.59; P=0.001).
Why the study?
Evidence is scarce regarding interventions aimed at improving caregiver contribution to patient self-care, caregiver self-efficacy, and caregiver preparedness in heart failure.
Does Motivational Interviewing improve caregiver contribution to self-care, self-efficacy, and preparedness in caregivers of patients with heart failure?
RCT (n=510)
Does Motivational Interviewing improve caregiver contribution to self-care, self-efficacy, and preparedness in caregivers of patients with heart failure?
Mean Difference: 8.36 (95% CI 3.13–13.59)
p-value: p=0.001
Motivational Interviewing for both patients and caregivers improves caregiver self-efficacy in heart failure, though it does not significantly increase caregiver contribution to self-care or preparedness.
Supports dyadic MI in HF to build caregiver confidence; extends evidence but leaves self-care contribution unresolved.
AIMS: Caregiver characteristics and behaviours are associated with patients' and caregivers' outcomes. However, there is scarce evidence on interventions aimed at improving caregiver contribution (CC) to patient self-care, caregiver self-efficacy, and caregiver preparedness in heart failure (HF). This study aims to evaluate the effect of Motivational Interviewing (MI) on CC to patient self-care, caregiver self-efficacy, and caregiver preparedness in HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a secondary outcome analysis of MOTIVATE-HF randomized controlled trial. Caregivers of patients with HF were randomized into three arms: Arm 1 (MI for patients), Arm 2 (MI for patients and caregivers), and Arm 3 (standard care). The intervention consisted of one MI session plus three telephone contacts. Data were collected at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. A total of 510 patient and caregiver (median age 54 years, 76% females) dyads were enrolled, 235 caregivers and 238 patients completed the study until 12 months. Caregiver contribution to self-care maintenance and management and caregiver preparedness significantly improved over time, but without significant differences among the three arms. At 9 months, caregiver self-efficacy improved more in Arm 2 than Arm 3 [difference: 8.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (3.13; 13.59), P = 0.001]. This improvement remained significant also at linear mixed model [β^ = 1.39, 95% CI (0.02; 2.75), P = 0.046]. CONCLUSION: Motivational Interviewing did not improve CC to patient self-care and caregiver preparedness. However, it increased caregiver self-efficacy, which is known to be a powerful mediator of CC to self-care. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02894502.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Locatelli et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=510). Motivational Interviewing vs. Standard care was evaluated on Caregiver contribution to patient self-care, caregiver self-efficacy, and caregiver preparedness (MD 8.36, 95% CI 3.13-13.59, p=0.001). Motivational Interviewing did not improve caregiver contribution to self-care or preparedness, but increased caregiver self-efficacy at 9 months (MD 8.36; 95% CI 3.13-13.59; P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: