↓ Skip to main content

The dynamics of self-care in the course of heart failure management: data from the IN TOUCH study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The dynamics of self-care in the course of heart failure management: data from the IN TOUCH study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s162219
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edita Lycholip, Ina Thon Aamodt, Irene Lie, Toma Šimbelytė, Roma Puronaitė, Hans Hillege, Arjen de Vries, Imke Kraai, Anna Stromberg, Tiny Jaarsma, Jelena Čelutkienė

Abstract

Self-care is an important patient-reported outcome (PRO) for heart failure (HF) patients, which might be affected by disease management and/or telemonitoring (TM). The number of studies reporting the influence of TM on self-care is limited. This study aimed: to assess whether TM, in addition to information-and-communication-technology (ICT)-guided disease management system (ICT-guided DMS), affects self-care behavior; to evaluate the dynamics of self-care during the study; to investigate factors contributing to self-care changes; and to identify a patient profile that predisposes the patient to improvement in self-care. In the INnovative ICT-guided-DMS combined with Telemonitoring in OUtpatient clinics for Chronic HF patients (IN TOUCH) study, 177 patients were randomized to either ICT-guided DMS or TM+ICT-guided DMS, with a follow-up of 9 months. The current analysis included 118 participants (mean age: 69±11.5 years; 70% male) who filled the following PRO instruments: the nine-item European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour scale (EHFScBs), Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADs), and Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire (MLHFQ). The baseline level of self-care was better in the TM+ICT-guided-DMS group (n=58) compared to ICT-guided-DMS group (n=60, p=0.023). Self-care behavior improved in the ICT-guided-DMS group (p<0.01) but not in the TM+ICT-guided-DMS group. Factors associated with self-care worsening were as follows: higher physical subscale of MLHFQ (per 10 points, p<0.05), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (per 5%, p<0.05), lower New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (class III vs class II, p<0.05). The subgroups of patients who had an initial EHFScBs total score >28, or from 17 to 28 with concomitant HADs depression subscale (HADs_D) score ≤8, demonstrated the greatest potential to improve self-care during the study. TM did not have an advantage on self-care improvement. Poor physical aspect of quality of life, lower LVEF, and lower NYHA class were associated with self-care worsening. The greatest self-care improvement may be achieved in those patients who have low or medium initial self-care level in the absence of depression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 28 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 33 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#7,963,683
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#581
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,299
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#19
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.