Key result
Participation in the REACH-HF home-based rehabilitation programme significantly improved health-related quality of life compared with baseline (MD -9.8; 95% CI -13.2 to -6.4; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation are required to improve access and uptake, prompting evaluation of the implementation of the home-based REACH-HF programme in routine clinical practice.
Does the REACH-HF home-based rehabilitation programme improve health-related quality of life in people with heart failure?
Observational (n=192)
Yes
Does the REACH-HF home-based rehabilitation programme improve health-related quality of life in people with heart failure?
Mean Difference: -9.8 (95% CI -13.2–-6.4)
p-value: p=< 0.001
Implementation of the home-based REACH-HF cardiac rehabilitation program in routine clinical practice significantly improved health-related quality of life for patients with heart failure.
Supports routine NHS adoption of home-based REACH-HF to improve CR access; extends RCT efficacy findings to real-world HF care.
AIMS: Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are required to improve CR access and uptake. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a comprehensive home-based rehabilitation and self-management programme, facilitated by trained health professionals, for people with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers. REACH-HF was shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multi-centre randomized trial. The SCOT:REACH-HF study assessed implementation of REACH-HF in routine clinical practice in NHS Scotland. METHODS AND RESULTS: A mixed-method implementation study was conducted across six regional Health Boards. Of 136 people with HF and 56 caregivers recruited, 101 people with HF and 26 caregivers provided 4-month follow-up data, after participating in the 12-week programme. Compared with baseline, REACH-HF participation resulted in substantial gains in the primary outcome of health-related quality of life, as assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference: -9.8, 95% CI: -13.2 to -6.4, P < 0.001). Improvements were also seen in secondary outcomes (PROM-CR+; EQ-5D-5L; Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) domains of maintenance and symptom perception; Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care domains of symptom perception and management). Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 REACH-HF facilitators, five supporting clinicians, and four national stakeholders. Interviewees were largely positive about REACH-HF, considering it to have 'filled a gap' where centre-based CR was not an option. Key issues to support future roll-out were also identified. CONCLUSION: Our findings support wider roll-out of REACH-HF as an alternative to centre-based models, to improve CR access and uptake for people with HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Purcell et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=192). REACH-HF home-based rehabilitation programme vs. Baseline was evaluated on Health-related quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire) (MD -9.8, 95% CI -13.2 to -6.4, p=< 0.001). Participation in the REACH-HF home-based rehabilitation programme significantly improved health-related quality of life compared with baseline (MD -9.8; 95% CI -13.2 to -6.4; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: