↓ Skip to main content

How effective is an in-hospital heart failure self-care program in a Japanese setting? Lessons from a randomized controlled pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
How effective is an in-hospital heart failure self-care program in a Japanese setting? Lessons from a randomized controlled pilot study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s100203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naoko P Kato, Koichiro Kinugawa, Miho Sano, Asuka Kogure, Fumika Sakuragi, Kihoko Kobukata, Hiroshi Ohtsu, Sanae Wakita, Tiny Jaarsma, Keiko Kazuma

Abstract

Although the effectiveness of heart failure (HF) disease management programs has been established in Western countries, to date there have been no such programs in Japan. These programs may have different effectiveness due to differences in health care organization and possible cultural differences with regard to self-care. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pilot HF program in a Japanese setting. We developed an HF program focused on enhancing patient self-care before hospital discharge. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the new HF program or usual care. The primary outcome was self-care behavior as assessed by the European Heart Failure Self-Care Behavior Scale (EHFScBS). Secondary outcomes included HF knowledge and the 2-year rate of HF hospitalization and/or cardiac death. A total of 32 patients were enrolled (mean age, 63 years; 31% female). There was no difference in the total score of the EHFScBS between the two groups. One specific behavior score regarding a low-salt diet significantly improved compared with baseline in the intervention group. HF knowledge in the intervention group tended to improve more over 6 months than in the control group (a group-by-time effect, F=2.47, P=0.098). During a 2-year follow-up, the HF program was related to better outcomes regarding HF hospitalization and/or cardiac death (14% vs 48%, log-rank test P=0.04). In Cox regression analysis after adjustment for age, sex, and logarithmic of B-type natriuretic peptide, the program was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalization and/or cardiac death (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.90; P=0.04). The HF program was likely to increase patients' HF knowledge, change their behavior regarding a low-salt diet, and reduce HF hospitalization and/or cardiac events. Further improvement focused on the transition of knowledge to self-care behavior is necessary.

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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 24%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,441,836
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,294
of 1,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,657
of 397,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#37
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 397,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.