Key result
The Future Patient Telerehabilitation program significantly improved clinical and social well-being and quality of life over 1 year in patients with heart failure (P<.05).
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation improves outcomes in heart failure but suffers from poor compliance and adherence, which telerehabilitation may help overcome.
Does a 1-year telerehabilitation program improve quality of life and well-being in patients with heart failure?
RCT (n=56)
Does a 1-year telerehabilitation program improve quality of life and well-being in patients with heart failure?
p-value: p=<.05
Participation in a 1-year telerehabilitation program was associated with significant improvements in clinical and social well-being and quality of life in patients with heart failure.
Telerehabilitation may benefit heart failure quality of life; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND More than 37 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with heart failure, which is a growing burden on the health sector. Cardiac rehabilitation aims to improve patients’ recovery, functional capacity, psychosocial well-being, and health-related quality of life. However, cardiac rehabilitation programs have poor compliance and adherence. Telerehabilitation may be a solution to overcome some of these challenges to cardiac rehabilitation by making it more individualized. As part of the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program, a digital toolbox aimed at enabling patients with heart failure to monitor and evaluate their own current status has been developed and tested using data from a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that the patient filled in every alternate week for 1 year. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to evaluate the changes in quality of life and well-being among patients with heart failure, who are participants in the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program over the course of 1 year. METHODS In total, 140 patients were enrolled in the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program and randomized into either the telerehabilitation group (n=70) or the control group (n=70). Of the 70 patients in the telerehabilitation group, 56 (80.0%) answered the patient-reported outcome questionnaire and completed the program, and these 56 patients comprised the study population. The patient-reported outcomes consisted of three components: (1) questions regarding the patients’ sleep patterns assessed using the Spiegel Sleep Questionnaire; (2) measurements of physical limitations, symptoms, self-efficacy, social interaction, and quality of life assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in 10 dimensions; and (3) 5 additional questions regarding psychological well-being that were developed by the research group. RESULTS The changes in scores during 1 year of the study were examined using 1-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. There were significant differences in the scores for most of the slopes of the scores from the dimensions of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS There was a significant increase in clinical and social well-being and quality of life during the 1-year period of participating in a telerehabilitation program. These results suggest that patient-reported outcome questionnaires may be used as a tool for patients in a telerehabilitation program that can both monitor and guide patients in mastering their own symptoms. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03388918; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03388918
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schacksen et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=56). Future Patient Telerehabilitation program vs. Control group was evaluated on Changes in quality of life and well-being assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (p=<.05). The Future Patient Telerehabilitation program significantly improved clinical and social well-being and quality of life over 1 year in patients with heart failure (P<.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: