Trial reportCirculation. Heart failure2013
Randomized controlled effectiveness trial of reciprocal peer support in heart failure.
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.
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.
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.
Mobilizing Peer Support for Effective Heart Failure Self-Management
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to Reduce Hospital Readmissions in Older African Americans: A Systematic Review of Studies Including African American Patients.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2023Pooled it
- Social network interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Multicomponent integrated care for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2023Pooled it
- Influence of Social Determinants of Health on Heart Failure Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of psychosocial support interventions on survival in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings: A meta-analysis of 106 randomized controlled trials.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Disease management interventions for heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- The costs, resource use and cost-effectiveness of Clinical Nurse Specialist-led interventions for patients with palliative care needs: A systematic review of international evidence.Palliative medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- What Are Effective Program Characteristics of Self-Management Interventions in Patients With Heart Failure? An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.Journal of cardiac failure · 2016Pooled it
- Do Self-Management Interventions Work in Patients With Heart Failure? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.Circulation · 2016Pooled it
- What Is Known About the Benefits of Patient-Centered Care in Patients with Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2015Pooled it
- Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Effect of a Peer Health Coaching Intervention on Clinical Outcomes Among US Veterans With Cardiovascular Risks: The Vet-COACH Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Nurse-Led Multidisciplinary Heart Failure Group Clinic Appointments: Methods, Materials, and Outcomes Used in the Clinical Trial.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingTrial
- Who Signs Up for and Engages in a Peer Support Heart Failure Self-management Intervention.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingTrial
- A pilot test of an integrated self-care intervention for persons with heart failure and concomitant diabetes.Nursing outlookTrial
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Beyond Physical Impairment: The Role of Social Frailty in Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.