ArticlePloS one2020
An international comparison of factors affecting quality of life among patients with congestive heart failure: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Life Assessment in Heart Failure Patients: Insights from a Low- to Middle-Income Country.Global heart · 2026Article
- Predictors of Quality of Life Among Middle-Aged Saudi Women: A Hierarchical Regression Analysis.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Associated Factors Among Cardiovascular Disease Patients at a Teaching Hospital in Northwest Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study.BioMed research international · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore associations among twenty formal and informal, societal and individual-level factors and quality of life (QOL) among people living with congestive heart failure (CHF) in two settings with different healthcare and social care systems and sociocultural contexts. SETTING AND
participantsWe recruited 367 adult patients with CHF from a single heart failure clinic within two countries with different national social to healthcare spending ratios: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States (US), and Nijmegen, Netherlands (NL).
designCross-sectional survey study. We adapted the Social Quality Model (SQM) to organize twenty diverse factors into four categories: Living Conditions (formal-societal: e.g., housing, education), Social Embeddedness (informal-societal: e.g., social support, trust), Societal Embeddedness (formal-individual: e.g., access to care, legal aid), and Self-Regulation (informal-individual: e.g., physical health, resilience). We developed a survey comprising validated instruments to assess each factor. We administered the survey in-person or by mail between March 2017 and August 2018. OUTCOMES: We used Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale to assess overall QOL. We used backwards stepwise regression to identify factors within each SQM category that were independently associated with QOL among US and NL participants (p<0.05). We then identified factors independently associated with QOL across all categories (p<0.05).
results367 CHF patients from the US (32%) and NL (68%) participated. Among US participants, financial status, receiving legal aid or housing assistance, and resilience were associated with QOL, and together explained 49% of the variance in QOL; among NL participants, financial status, perceived physical health, independence in activities of daily living, and resilience were associated with QOL, and explained 53% of the variance in QOL.
conclusionsFour formal and informal factors explained approximately half of the variance in QOL among patients with CHF in the US and NL.
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.