ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Inpatient vs. Outpatient: A Systematic Review of Information Needs throughout the Heart Failure Patient Journey.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. 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.
- Artificial intelligence to support clinical practice across the inpatient heart failure care pathway: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- Constructing a disease management journey map from the acute decompensated heart failure journey perspective: a descriptive qualitative study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Article
- Informational support for women with endometriosis: a scoping review.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Gaps in Heart Failure Care: The Need for Effective Communication and Health Literacy-concordant Patient Education.US cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe information needs for individuals with heart failure (HF) throughout their patient journey. Six databases were searched (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL Ultimate, Embase, Emcare Nursing, Medline ALL, and Web of Science Core Collection) from inception to February 2023. Search strategies were developed utilizing the PICO framework. Potential studies of any methodological design were considered for inclusion through a snowball hand search. Data from the included articles were extracted by a reviewer, and the extraction accuracy was independently cross-checked by another author. Quality appraisal was assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis was used to analyze all the outcomes according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guidelines. Twenty-five studies (15 quantitative and 10 qualitative) were included. Socioeconomic, cultural, and demographic factors influencing information needs were considered. The top three information needs for outpatients included general HF information, signs and symptoms and disease management strategies. For inpatients, medications, risk factors, and general HF were reported as the top needs. These divergent needs emphasize the importance of tailored education at different stages. Additionally, the review identified gaps in global representation, with limited studies from Africa and South America, underscoring the need for inclusive research. The findings caution against overgeneralization due to varied reporting methods. Practical implications call for culturally sensitive interventions to address nuanced HF patients' needs, while future research must prioritize standardized reporting, consider diverse patient journey timepoints, and minimize biases for enhanced reliability and applicability.
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.