Key result
A review of 282 RCTs found that self-management interventions for heart failure predominantly utilize information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), mostly targeting individual patients.
Why the study?
Self-management interventions may improve heart failure outcomes and address disease management challenges, but randomized evidence and existing knowledge gaps needed to be mapped.
What is the landscape of randomized evidence regarding self-management interventions for adults with heart failure?
Systematic Review
Yes
What is the landscape of randomized evidence regarding self-management interventions for adults with heart failure?
This evidence map highlights the extensive but methodologically variable randomized evidence for self-management interventions in heart failure, identifying gaps in diverse populations and allocation concealment reporting.
Evidence map of SMIs in HF reveals gaps; leaves open optimal components and implementation for trials and practice.
Self-management interventions (SMIs) may enhance heart failure (HF) outcomes and address challenges associated with disease management. This study aims to review randomized evidence and identify knowledge gaps in SMIs for adult HF patients. Within the COMPAR-EU project, from 2010 to 2018, we conducted searches in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. We performed a descriptive analysis using predefined categories and developed an evidence map of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found 282 RCTs examining SMIs for HF patients, comparing two to four interventions, primarily targeting individual patients (97%) globally (34 countries, only 31% from an European country). These interventions involved support techniques such as information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), often through a mix of in-person and remote sessions (43%). Commonly assessed outcomes included quality of life, hospital admissions, mortality, exercise capacity, and self-efficacy. Few studies have focused on lower socio-economic or minority groups. Nurses (68%) and physicians (30%) were the primary providers, and most studies were at low risk of bias in generating a random sequence for participant allocation; however, the reporting was noticeably unclear of methods used to conceal the allocation process. Our analysis has revealed prevalent support techniques and delivery methods while highlighting methodological challenges. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers striving to optimize SMIs for individuals living with HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santero et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review in Heart failure. Self-management interventions was evaluated. A review of 282 RCTs found that self-management interventions for heart failure predominantly utilize information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), mostly targeting individual patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: