↓ Skip to main content

Do Self-Management Interventions Work in Patients With Heart Failure?

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
177 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
230 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 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
Do Self-Management Interventions Work in Patients With Heart Failure?
Published in
Circulation, February 2016
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.115.018006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nini H Jonkman, Heleen Westland, Rolf H H Groenwold, Susanna Ågren, Felipe Atienza, Lynda Blue, Pieta W F Bruggink-André de la Porte, Darren A DeWalt, Paul L Hebert, Michele Heisler, Tiny Jaarsma, Gertrudis I J M Kempen, Marcia E Leventhal, Dirk J A Lok, Jan Mårtensson, Javier Muñiz, Haruka Otsu, Frank Peters-Klimm, Michael W Rich, Barbara Riegel, Anna Strömberg, Ross T Tsuyuki, Dirk J van Veldhuisen, Jaap C A Trappenburg, Marieke J Schuurmans, Arno W Hoes

Abstract

-Self-management interventions are widely implemented in care for patients with heart failure (HF). Trials however show inconsistent results and whether specific patient groups respond differently is unknown. This individual patient data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of self-management interventions in HF patients and whether subgroups of patients respond differently. -Systematic literature search identified randomized trials of self-management interventions. Data of twenty studies, representing 5624 patients, were included and analyzed using mixed effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models including interaction terms. Self-management interventions reduced risk of time to the combined endpoint HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.89), time to HF-related hospitalization (HR, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.69-0.92), and improved 12-month HF-related quality of life (standardized mean difference 0.15; 95%CI, 0.00-0.30). Subgroup analysis revealed a protective effect of self-management on number of HF-related hospital days in patients <65 years (mean number of days 0.70 days vs. 5.35 days; interaction p=0.03). Patients without depression did not show an effect of self-management on survival (HR for all-cause mortality, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.69-1.06), while in patients with moderate/severe depression self-management reduced survival (HR, 1.39; 95%CI, 1.06-1.83, interaction p=0.01). -This study shows that self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on time to HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death, HF-related hospitalization alone, and elicited a small increase in HF-related quality of life. The findings do not endorse limiting self-management interventions to subgroups of HF patients, but increased mortality in depressed patients warrants caution in applying self-management strategies in these patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 177 X users 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 230 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 13%
Student > Master 29 13%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 46 20%
Unknown 63 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 62 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 22%
Psychology 9 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 75 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 122. 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 21 April 2024.
All research outputs
#348,901
of 25,756,531 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#992
of 21,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,446
of 412,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#23
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 412,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.