Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23388114›Full record

Trial reportCirculation. Heart failure2013

Randomized controlled effectiveness trial of reciprocal peer support in heart failure.

Michele Heisler, Lakshmi Halasyamani, Mark E Cowen, Matthew D Davis, Ken Resnicow, Robert L Strawderman, Hwajung Choi, Rebecca Mase, John D Piette

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Circulation. Heart failure, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00508508 (Mobilizing Peer Support for Effective Heart Failure Self-Management), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00508508 nacompletednot on this map

Mobilizing Peer Support for Effective Heart Failure Self-Management

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MichiganRan2007 to 2010Enrolled266ConditionsHeart Failure, CongestiveArmsInteractive Voice Response System, Nurse-Led Group Clinic Visits
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Disease management interventions for heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Beyond Physical Impairment: The Role of Social Frailty in Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Michele HeislerDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. mheisler@umich.edu
Lakshmi Halasyamani
Mark E Cowen
Matthew D Davis
Ken Resnicow
Robert L Strawderman
Hwajung Choi
Rebecca Mase
John D Piette

Funding

MICHIGAN INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL AND HEALTH RESEARCH (MICHR) (UL1): (BPCA)UL1RR024986 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SHANLEY, THOMAS P. · 2007 to 2011
$51.2M
Regional Pilot And Feasibility Study Grants ProgramP30DK020572 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DAVID P OLSON · 2013 to 2026
$24.3M
Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Peer Support--Congestive Heart Failure Self-ManagementR01HL085420 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HEISLER, MARY ELLEN MICHELE · 2006 to 2009
$2.0M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024986NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR024986NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL085420NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK020572NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough disease management programs for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) are effective, they are, however, often resource intensive, limiting their uptake. Peer support programs have led to improved outcomes among patients with other chronic conditions and may result in similar improvements for patients with HF. METHODS AND

resultsIn this randomized controlled trial, reciprocal peer support (RPS) arm patients participated in a HF nurse practitioner-led goal setting group session, received brief training in peer communication skills, and were paired with another participant in their cohort with whom they were encouraged to talk weekly using a telephone platform. Participants were also encouraged to attend 3 nurse practitioner-facilitated peer support group sessions. Patients in the nurse care management arm attended a nurse practitioner-led session to address their HF care questions and receive HF educational materials and information on how to access care management services. The median age of the patients was 69 years; 51% were female and 26% were racial/ethnic minorities. Only 55% of RPS patients participated in peer calls or group sessions. In intention-to-treat analyses, the RPS and nurse care management groups did not differ in time-to-first all-cause rehospitalization or death or in mean numbers of rehospitalizations or deaths. There were no differences in improvements in 6-month measures of HF-specific quality of life or social support. Conclusions- Among patients recently hospitalized for HF, more than half of RPS participants had no or minimal engagement with the RPS program, and the program did not improve outcomes compared with usual HF nurse care management. CLINICAL

trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT00508508.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNurse PractitionersPeer GroupSelf-Help GroupsSocial SupportAgedAged, 80 and overChi-Square DistributionCommunicationDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMichiganMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID23388114
PMCPMC3782294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.