Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29138538›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2017

Interpretability of the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour scale.

Kim P Wagenaar, Berna Dl Broekhuizen, Frans H Rutten, Anna Strömberg, Henk F van Stel, Arno W Hoes, Tiny Jaarsma

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kim P WagenaarJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Berna Dl BroekhuizenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Frans H RuttenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Anna StrömbergDepartment of Social and Welfare Studies, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Henk F van StelJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Arno W HoesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Tiny JaarsmaDepartment of Social and Welfare Studies, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour scale (EHFScBs) is a valid patient-reported questionnaire to measure self-care behavior of heart failure (HF) patients. We assessed the interpretability of the EHFScBs.

methodsWe used data of 1,023 HF patients. Interpretability refers to the clinical meaning of the score and its changes over time. We operationalized interpretability by evaluating distributions of EHFScBs scores across relevant HF subgroups by eyeballing, by testing the risk on hospitalizations and mortality of a plausible threshold, and by determining a clinically relevant minimal important change (MIC). The scale score ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher score meaning better self-care. A threshold of ≥70 was defined as adequate and <70 as inadequate self-care.

resultsThe EHFScBs scores were similarly normally distributed among the subgroups with a mean between 57.8 (SD 19.4) and 72.0 (SD 18.0). The 464 HF patients with adequate self-care had significantly less all-cause hospitalizations than the 559 patients with inadequate self-care.

conclusionThe degree of self-care showed to be independent of relevant HF subgroups. A single threshold of 70 accurately discriminated between patients with adequate and inadequate self-care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The threshold of 70 can be used in designing studies and informing health policy makers.

Indexed as

heart failureinterpretabilitypatient-reported outcomeself-carethreshold and minimal important change

Identifiers

PMID29138538
PMCPMC5667783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.