Heart Failure
Conditions
Keywords
Self-care, Self-efficacy, Heart Failure, Stress, Support Systems
Brief summary
Informal caregiving is demanding and stressful. Caregivers of adults with heart failure (HF) report significant stress and poor self-care. Health coaching, a support intervention, may relieve stress and promote self-care in HF caregivers. Few studies have tested the cost-effectiveness of support interventions for caregivers. Even less is known about the effect of caregiver support interventions on HF outcomes. We developed and tested a virtual support intervention (ViCCY (Vicky)-Virtual Caregiver Coach for you), in HF caregivers. Using randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, we enrolled informal HF caregivers with poor self-care (Health Self-Care Neglect scale score\>=2), randomizing them 1:1 to an intervention or control group. Both groups received Health Information (HI) delivered through the Internet, but the ViCCY caregiver group also received 10 health coaching support sessions tailored to individual issues. The control group had access to the same HI resources over the same interval, using the same Internet program, but without coaching support. At baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, we collected self-reported data on self-care, stress, coping, and health status. At 6 months, we compared ViCCY to HI alone to assess intervention efficacy using intent-to-treat analysis. A sample of 250 caregivers (125/arm) was enrolled to provide \>90% power to detect significant differences between the groups on the primary outcome of self-care (Aim 1). We collected quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and health care resource use in caregivers over 12 months to assess cost-effectiveness of ViCCY (Aim 2). To explore the effect of caregiver outcomes on HF patients' outcomes (hospitalization rates, hospital days, mortality rates, QALYs) over a 12-month period (Aim 3) and knowing that not all HF patients would enroll, we consented a subgroup of 93 HF patients cared for by these caregivers to explore the effect of caregiver self-care on patient outcomes. If shown to be efficacious and cost-effective, our virtual health coaching intervention can easily scaled to support millions of caregivers worldwide. This application addresses the NINR strategic plan and is directly responsive to PA-18-150.
Detailed description
We used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, randomizing informal heart failure (HF) caregivers meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria 1:1 to an intervention or control group. After collecting baseline data, we block randomized the caregivers to achieve equal distribution of key variables in each condition. We will block randomize on caregiver sex (male/female), relationship to patient (e.g., spouse), and race. Sex and relationship are factors known to influence perceived caregiving burden and receptivity to intervention. Race was included to assure group balance. The randomization sequence was generated a priori by a statistician independent of the study investigators using a randomly permuted blocks algorithm to ensure equal distribution of these variables in each study arm. The Project Manager notified study staff and participants of their group assignment (intervention or control) by telephone, email or message, as preferred by the individual. Investigators and all staff involved in collecting assessment data were blinded to group assignment until after the data were locked. The health coach providing the intervention and the caregiver participants were not be blinded. All baseline data were collected prior to randomizing. Timing of follow-up assessments were based on day of randomization. The study intervention was provided to individual caregivers. All caregivers (both groups) were provided with access to an Internet site with excellent health information (HI). The virtual support intervention (ViCCY \[Vicky\] - Virtual Caregiver Coach for You) was provided through tablet devices provided to caregivers in the intervention group. We provided tablets to all the caregivers, assuring that they had wireless network access so they can access the Internet site providing HI content. Caregivers in the control group received only HI but caregivers in the intervention group received 10 sessions of ViCCY over 6 months.
Interventions
Virtual Caregiver Coach for You
Sponsors
Study design
Masking description
The investigator was blinded to the assignment of participant to the two different arms in the study.
Intervention model description
The study was based on the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. Stressful experiences such as caregiving demand - circumstances that give rise to real or perceived stress - are construed as person-environment transactions. Primary appraisal of demand involves assessment of its significance, which results in perceived burden. Secondary appraisal involves assessment of the resources available to cope with it. These appraisals lead to the coping effort. Without successful coping, self-care is poor, which decreases health status in caregivers. The virtual support intervention \[ViCCY (Vicky) - Virtual Caregiver Coach for You\] addressed both appraisal and coping.
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
Informal caregiver of adults with heart failure providing care at least 8 hours/week, reporting poor self-care on screening (Health Self-Care Neglect scale score \>=2 based on our pilot data), able to complete the protocol, e.g., adequate vision and hearing, and English speaking were required for enrollment.
Exclusion criteria
Cognitive impairment (Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status \[TICS\] \<25), Participation in another clinical trial of a support intervention, Untreated major psychiatric illness (Use of anti-anxiety/antidepressant medicines was acceptable and will be adjusted in analysis if group imbalance is identified).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | The primary outcome was analyzed at 6 months (baseline compared to 6 months) but data were collected at 9- and 12-months to assess sustainability. | The Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) scale measures an individual's neglect of self-care behaviors. It consists of 9 yes or no questions. Scores range from 0-9. Higher scores indicating more self-care neglect. |
| Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale | The primary outcome was analyzed at 6 months (baseline compared to 6 months) but data were collected at 9- and 12-months to assess sustainability. | The Self-Care Inventory is a 20 item inventory with 3 embedded scales (self-care maintenance, monitoring, and management). The outcome used in this study was the 8-item Self-Care Maintenance Scale. Responses are added and standardized to range from 0-100. A higher score indicates better self-care. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | The primary analysis was at 6 months (baseline compared to 6 months) but data were collected at 9- and 12-months to assess sustainability. | We used a 30-item modification of the original 42-item questionnaire developed by Lazarus in 1985. We measured these coping styles: active, avoidance, and minimization. The instrument uses a 4-point Likert-scale response format (0 = not used to 3 = used a great deal). Scores range from 0-45, 0-30, and 0-30 for the active, avoidance and minimization subscales, respectively. Higher scores indicate greater use of particular coping styles. |
| Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | Main analysis was Baseline to 6 months. Data will be analyzed at 12 months to determine sustainability of intervention effect. | The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), a 14-item instrument that provides a global rating of an individual's belief in the severity and frequency of stressful experiences during the last month. The Perceived Stress Scale includes 14 items designed to assess symptoms of stress and global measures of the degree of stress experienced in the past month. Each item is scored from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), with total sum scores ranging from 0 to 56; higher scores indicate higher perceived stress. In prior test, Cronbach's alpha of the scale ranged from 0.84 to 0.86, and was 0.91 for older African American and European American females. |
| Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | Main analysis Baseline to 6 months. Sustainability assessed at 12 months. | Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36): measure of physical and mental health.The SF-36 has 36 items formatted in scales of varied format (3-, 5- and 6-pt scales and dichotomous \[yes/no\] scales). Each component score is standardized a 0-100 point scale. Higher values represent better health status. Reliability is varied samples is typically 0.80. Convergent and divergent validity have been demonstrated in various populations, including caregivers. A benefit of using the SF-36 is that it is one of the common data elements. |
| Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores | Measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months; primary analysis baseline to 12 months | The SF-6D uses preference weights derived from the SF-36. The Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) provides a way to use the SF-36 in economic evaluation by estimating a preference-based single index measure for health from these data using general population values. The SF-6D score represents caregiver quality of life at a given timepoint. Higher SF-6D Scores are better. |
| Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Data were collected at Baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The primary analysis was done using the baseline to 12 month period. | Healthcare resource use was self-reported by caregivers when they were telephoned at each follow-up period, asking about utilization since the last interview date. The self-reported healthcare use comprised 5 major categories: hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, ambulance services, and home care services. A bottom-up cost account approach was used, wherein the sum of resources times their unit price yielded the total costs associated with healthcare resource use. Unit prices were measured using the 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) (https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb), an annual survey on the financing and use of medical care in the United States collected by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in the Patients' Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Measured With the SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Derived From the Short Form-36 | QALYs were measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. But this analysis focused on the baseline to 12 month period. | This measure of quality adjusted life years (QALY) is derived from the SF-36. It was used in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The SF-6D uses preference weights derived from the SF-36. The Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) provides a way to use the SF-36 in economic evaluation by estimating a preference-based single index measure for health from these data using general population values. The SF-6D score represents patient quality of life at a given timepoint, while the QALY represents the area under the curve of patient quality of life from baseline to 12-month timepoints. A QALY value of one equates to one year in perfect health. Higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) are better. |
| Patient Mortality Rates | Patient mortality occurring between months 6-12 of the study (following the intervention period) | For the 93 patients enrolled, the medical record was reviewed to measure mortality. The aim was to explore the effect of caregiver outcomes (self-care, stress, coping, health status) on HF patient outcomes. We hypothesize that at 12 months, HF patients whose caregivers improve vs. not improve in self-care (regardless of treatment group) would have lower mortality rates. A comparison of patient mortality occurring between 6 and 12 months was conducted between those caregivers who improved in self care during the intervention period (baseline to 6 months) and those caregivers who did not improve in self care. |
| Difference in Patient Hospitalization Rate | Count of patient hospitalizations that occurred between 6 and 12 months (following the intervention, which ended at 6 months) | For the 93 patients enrolled, the medical record was reviewed to capture hospitalization count. The aim was to explore the effect of caregiver outcomes (self-care) on HF patient outcomes. We hypothesize that at 12 months, HF patients whose caregivers improve vs. not improve in self-care (regardless of treatment group) will have Lower hospitalization rates. A comparison of patients' hospitalization counts which occurred between 6 and 12 month timepoints was conducted between those caregivers who exhibited a self care improvement from baseline to 6 month timepoint and those caregivers who did not exhibit a self care improvement from the baseline to 6 month timepoint. |
| Patient Hospitalization Days | Count of patient hospitalization days which occurred between 6 and 12 month timepoints | For the 93 patients enrolled, the medical record was reviewed to capture hospitalization days. The aim was to explore the effect of caregiver outcomes (self-care, stress, coping, health status) on HF patient outcomes. We hypothesize that at 12 months, HF patients whose caregivers improve vs. not improve in self-care (regardless of treatment group) will have Lower hospitalization rates. A comparison of patients' hospitalization days which occurred between 6 and 12 month timepoints was conducted between those caregivers who exhibited a self care improvement from baseline to 6 month timepoint and those caregivers who did not exhibit a self care improvement from the baseline to 6 month timepoint. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
677 caregivers were screened for eligibility from a regional HF referral center in the US from August 2019- November 2022. 502 were eligible, 50% of those declined participation and 26% did not meet inclusion criteria. 250 caregivers were enrolled and consented for participation. 93 patients associated with the enrolled caregivers were consented to participate. Patient enrollment exceeded the targeted goal of 40.
Pre-assignment details
Enrolled caregivers were stratified by race, relationship to caregiver, and sex prior to assignment of intervention arm.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Intervention Caregivers randomized to the intervention (Virtual Caregiver Coach for You \[ViCCY\]) received 10 sessions of virtual health coaching by health coaches over 6 months. Intervention content was based on the theoretical framework (Transactional Model of Stress and Coping) and prior research. Sessions were individual and virtual (provided using tablets). The health coaches helped caregivers gain the knowledge and skills needed to achieve their self-identified health goals through self-care. We focused on identifying personal values, solving problems, and transforming goals into action. ViCCY is standardized in a treatment manual. Because stress does not affect all people equally, the intervention was tailored to individual appraisals and the factors most likely to influence demand and perceived burden.
ViCCY: Virtual Health Coaching for You | 167 |
| Control Caregivers randomized to the control group received Health Information on Samsung tablets. They were asked to spend at least 30 minutes weekly using the computer tablets to access recommended websites. | 176 |
| Total | 343 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 16 | 17 |
| Overall Study | Patient death | 1 | 5 |
| Overall Study | Patient Lost to Follow Up | 15 | 15 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 14 | 7 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Total | Intervention | Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active Coping Subscale | 22.7 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7 | 22.6 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.1 | 22.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.3 |
| Age, Continuous Caregiver Age | 55.3 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.64 | 55.4 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.78 | 55.3 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.55 |
| Age, Continuous Patient Age | 56.5 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.73 | 56.1 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.34 | 56.9 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.37 |
| Avoidance Coping Subscale | 9.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.2 | 9.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.9 | 10.7 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.4 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data Hispanic or Latino | 9 Participants | 5 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data Not Hispanic or Latino | 239 Participants | 119 Participants | 120 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data Unknown or Not Reported | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Patient Data Hispanic or Latino | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Patient Data Not Hispanic or Latino | 91 Participants | 41 Participants | 50 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Patient Data Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Health Self-care Neglect (HSCN) scale | 4.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 | 4.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 | 5.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 |
| Hours caregiver per day | 8.1 Hours STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5 | 8.2 Hours STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5 | 7.9 Hours STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5 |
| Minimization Coping Subscale | 12.3 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.5 | 11.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.4 | 12.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.6 |
| Perceived Stress Scale | 26.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.6 | 25.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5 | 26.5 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.7 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data Asian | 4 Participants | 1 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data Black or African American | 74 Participants | 35 Participants | 39 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data More than one race | 11 Participants | 6 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data Unknown or Not Reported | 6 Participants | 4 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Caregiver Data White | 155 Participants | 79 Participants | 76 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Patient Data American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Patient Data Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Patient Data Black or African American | 20 Participants | 8 Participants | 12 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Patient Data More than one race | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Patient Data Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Patient Data Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Patient Data White | 68 Participants | 31 Participants | 37 Participants |
| Self Care Maintenance | 68.5 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.9 | 68.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.1 | 68.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.7 |
| Sex: Female, Male Caregiver Data Female | 213 Participants | 106 Participants | 107 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Caregiver Data Male | 37 Participants | 19 Participants | 18 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Patient Data Female | 20 Participants | 10 Participants | 10 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Patient Data Male | 73 Participants | 32 Participants | 41 Participants |
| Short Form (SF)-36- Mental Health Status | 42.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.3 | 43.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.3 | 41.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.2 |
| Short Form (SF)-36 Physical Health Status | 47.6 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.8 | 48.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.1 | 47.3 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.6 |
| Years as caregiver | 3.25 years | 3.75 years | 3.00 years |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 125 | 0 / 125 | 15 / 42 | 12 / 51 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 125 | 0 / 125 | 0 / 29 | 0 / 31 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 9 / 125 | 13 / 125 | 21 / 42 | 26 / 51 |
Outcome results
Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale
The Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) scale measures an individual's neglect of self-care behaviors. It consists of 9 yes or no questions. Scores range from 0-9. Higher scores indicating more self-care neglect.
Time frame: The primary outcome was analyzed at 6 months (baseline compared to 6 months) but data were collected at 9- and 12-months to assess sustainability.
Population: Number of participants analyzed differs across timepoints due to participant attrition, missing data due to nonresponse, and/or missed study timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 3 Month Score | 3.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.07 |
| Intervention | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 9 Month Score | 2.34 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.99 |
| Intervention | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 6 Month Score | 2.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.09 |
| Intervention | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 12 Month Score | 2.57 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.1 |
| Intervention | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN Baseline Score | 4.89 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.07 |
| Control | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 12 Month Score | 3.09 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.17 |
| Control | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN Baseline Score | 4.97 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.12 |
| Control | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 3 Month Score | 3.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.17 |
| Control | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 6 Month Score | 3.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.16 |
| Control | Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) Scale | HSCN 9 Month Score | 3.02 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.24 |
Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale
The Self-Care Inventory is a 20 item inventory with 3 embedded scales (self-care maintenance, monitoring, and management). The outcome used in this study was the 8-item Self-Care Maintenance Scale. Responses are added and standardized to range from 0-100. A higher score indicates better self-care.
Time frame: The primary outcome was analyzed at 6 months (baseline compared to 6 months) but data were collected at 9- and 12-months to assess sustainability.
Population: Number of participants analyzed differs across timepoints due to participant attrition, missing data due to nonresponse, and/or missed study timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale | Self Care Maintenance, Baseline Score | 68.83 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 16.09 |
| Intervention | Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale | Self Care Maintenance, 6 Month Score | 79.86 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.29 |
| Intervention | Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale | Self Care Maintenance, 12 Month Score | 76.62 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.26 |
| Control | Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale | Self Care Maintenance, Baseline Score | 68.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.73 |
| Control | Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale | Self Care Maintenance, 6 Month Score | 72.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.35 |
| Control | Change in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance Scale | Self Care Maintenance, 12 Month Score | 74.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.61 |
Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)
Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36): measure of physical and mental health.The SF-36 has 36 items formatted in scales of varied format (3-, 5- and 6-pt scales and dichotomous \[yes/no\] scales). Each component score is standardized a 0-100 point scale. Higher values represent better health status. Reliability is varied samples is typically 0.80. Convergent and divergent validity have been demonstrated in various populations, including caregivers. A benefit of using the SF-36 is that it is one of the common data elements.
Time frame: Main analysis Baseline to 6 months. Sustainability assessed at 12 months.
Population: Number of participants analyzed differs across timepoints due to participant attrition, missing data due to nonresponse, and/or missed study timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Physical Component Baseline Score | 48.02 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.11 |
| Intervention | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Physical Component 6 Month Score | 47.84 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.84 |
| Intervention | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Physical Component 12 Month Score | 49.10 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.33 |
| Intervention | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Mental Component Baseline Score | 43.17 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.27 |
| Intervention | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Mental Component 6 Month Score | 48.18 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.43 |
| Intervention | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Mental Component 12 Month Score | 46.87 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.27 |
| Control | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Mental Component 6 Month Score | 42.73 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.1 |
| Control | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Physical Component Baseline Score | 47.25 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.57 |
| Control | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Mental Component Baseline Score | 41.06 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.21 |
| Control | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Physical Component 6 Month Score | 48.18 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.52 |
| Control | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Mental Component 12 Month Score | 44.33 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.78 |
| Control | Change in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status) | SF36 Physical Component 12 Month Score | 47.57 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.95 |
Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores
The SF-6D uses preference weights derived from the SF-36. The Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) provides a way to use the SF-36 in economic evaluation by estimating a preference-based single index measure for health from these data using general population values. The SF-6D score represents caregiver quality of life at a given timepoint. Higher SF-6D Scores are better.
Time frame: Measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months; primary analysis baseline to 12 months
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores | Baseline SF-6D | 0.696 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.105 |
| Intervention | Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores | 6 Month SF-6D | 0.733 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.119 |
| Intervention | Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores | 12 Month SF-6D | 0.731 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.107 |
| Control | Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores | Baseline SF-6D | 0.675 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.132 |
| Control | Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores | 6 Month SF-6D | 0.688 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.128 |
| Control | Change in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores | 12 Month SF-6D | 0.690 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.116 |
Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), a 14-item instrument that provides a global rating of an individual's belief in the severity and frequency of stressful experiences during the last month. The Perceived Stress Scale includes 14 items designed to assess symptoms of stress and global measures of the degree of stress experienced in the past month. Each item is scored from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), with total sum scores ranging from 0 to 56; higher scores indicate higher perceived stress. In prior test, Cronbach's alpha of the scale ranged from 0.84 to 0.86, and was 0.91 for older African American and European American females.
Time frame: Main analysis was Baseline to 6 months. Data will be analyzed at 12 months to determine sustainability of intervention effect.
Population: Number of participants analyzed differs across timepoints due to participant attrition, missing data due to nonresponse, and/or missed study timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | PSS Baseline Score | 25.91 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.48 |
| Intervention | Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | PSS 6 Month Score | 19.73 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.97 |
| Intervention | Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | PSS 12 Month Score | 20.76 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.39 |
| Control | Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | PSS Baseline Score | 26.49 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.73 |
| Control | Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | PSS 6 Month Score | 25.20 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.71 |
| Control | Change in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) | PSS 12 Month Score | 24.00 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.02 |
Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire
We used a 30-item modification of the original 42-item questionnaire developed by Lazarus in 1985. We measured these coping styles: active, avoidance, and minimization. The instrument uses a 4-point Likert-scale response format (0 = not used to 3 = used a great deal). Scores range from 0-45, 0-30, and 0-30 for the active, avoidance and minimization subscales, respectively. Higher scores indicate greater use of particular coping styles.
Time frame: The primary analysis was at 6 months (baseline compared to 6 months) but data were collected at 9- and 12-months to assess sustainability.
Population: Number of participants analyzed differs across timepoints due to participant attrition, missing data due to nonresponse, and/or missed study timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 12 Month Score | 8.61 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.32 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 12 Month Score | 26.31 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.59 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 3 Month Score | 8.95 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.72 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping Baseline Score | 11.78 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.39 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 3 Month Score | 24.88 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.95 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 3 Month Score | 11.91 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.29 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 9 Month Score | 9.84 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.73 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 6 Month Score | 12.16 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.36 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 6 Month Score | 27.36 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.54 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 9 Month Score | 11.95 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.58 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 6 Month Score | 8.82 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.86 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 12 Month Score | 12.03 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.14 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 9 Month Score | 27.99 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.71 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping Baseline Score | 22.56 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.14 |
| Intervention | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping Baseline Score | 9.04 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.86 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping Baseline Score | 22.92 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.29 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping Baseline Score | 10.72 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.37 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 3 Month Score | 9.01 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.22 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 6 Month Score | 11.85 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.18 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 9 Month Score | 10.89 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.83 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Avoidance Coping 12 Month Score | 10.54 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.1 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 3 Month Score | 21.52 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.06 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 6 Month Score | 25.50 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.66 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 9 Month Score | 27.55 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.09 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Active Coping 12 Month Score | 26.00 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.43 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping Baseline Score | 12.89 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.64 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 3 Month Score | 11.99 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.79 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 6 Month Score | 13.87 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.66 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 9 Month Score | 12.15 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.73 |
| Control | Change in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire | Minimize Coping 12 Month Score | 13.18 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.98 |
Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events
Healthcare resource use was self-reported by caregivers when they were telephoned at each follow-up period, asking about utilization since the last interview date. The self-reported healthcare use comprised 5 major categories: hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, ambulance services, and home care services. A bottom-up cost account approach was used, wherein the sum of resources times their unit price yielded the total costs associated with healthcare resource use. Unit prices were measured using the 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) (https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb), an annual survey on the financing and use of medical care in the United States collected by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
Time frame: Data were collected at Baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The primary analysis was done using the baseline to 12 month period.
Population: At 12-months we had 209 caregivers available for the analysis; 15 were missing healthcare utilization data. We excluded 1 outlier who was in the hospital a long time. Then we had 193 in the final sample. Some of the 193 caregivers included in the analysis skipped one or two or even more follow-up interviews. However, caregivers were asked to report their healthcare utilization since the last follow-up and thus these records were able to be included in analysis.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-3 Month | 247.539 Dollars | Standard Deviation 1223.542 |
| Intervention | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-9 Month | 1347.139 Dollars | Standard Deviation 3018.211 |
| Intervention | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-6 Month | 1155.871 Dollars | Standard Deviation 2577.653 |
| Intervention | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-12 Month | 1811.245 Dollars | Standard Deviation 3228.807 |
| Intervention | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-1 Month | 59.703 Dollars | Standard Deviation 281.566 |
| Control | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-12 Month | 3121.488 Dollars | Standard Deviation 8123.811 |
| Control | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-1 Month | 67.004 Dollars | Standard Deviation 379.774 |
| Control | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-3 Month | 955.193 Dollars | Standard Deviation 4262.877 |
| Control | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-6 Month | 1585.167 Dollars | Standard Deviation 5448.238 |
| Control | Difference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider Events | Healthcare Cost 0-9 Month | 2007.453 Dollars | Standard Deviation 6889.446 |
Change in the Patients' Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Measured With the SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Derived From the Short Form-36
This measure of quality adjusted life years (QALY) is derived from the SF-36. It was used in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The SF-6D uses preference weights derived from the SF-36. The Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) provides a way to use the SF-36 in economic evaluation by estimating a preference-based single index measure for health from these data using general population values. The SF-6D score represents patient quality of life at a given timepoint, while the QALY represents the area under the curve of patient quality of life from baseline to 12-month timepoints. A QALY value of one equates to one year in perfect health. Higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) are better.
Time frame: QALYs were measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. But this analysis focused on the baseline to 12 month period.
Population: 49 patients provided complete SF36 data at both baseline and 12 month timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Change in the Patients' Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Measured With the SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Derived From the Short Form-36 | 0.67 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.11 |
| Control | Change in the Patients' Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Measured With the SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Derived From the Short Form-36 | 0.68 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.1 |
Difference in Patient Hospitalization Rate
For the 93 patients enrolled, the medical record was reviewed to capture hospitalization count. The aim was to explore the effect of caregiver outcomes (self-care) on HF patient outcomes. We hypothesize that at 12 months, HF patients whose caregivers improve vs. not improve in self-care (regardless of treatment group) will have Lower hospitalization rates. A comparison of patients' hospitalization counts which occurred between 6 and 12 month timepoints was conducted between those caregivers who exhibited a self care improvement from baseline to 6 month timepoint and those caregivers who did not exhibit a self care improvement from the baseline to 6 month timepoint.
Time frame: Count of patient hospitalizations that occurred between 6 and 12 months (following the intervention, which ended at 6 months)
Population: The study sample includes 93 patients total. Because analysis focuses on patient outcomes during months 6 to 12 of the study, 4 patients were excluded from analysis of patient health outcomes due to death occurring between baseline and 6-month study timepoint. Among the remaining 89 enrolled patients, 15 did not provide sufficient data to determine whether self care improved from baseline to six months. Thus, a sample of 74 patients was analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Difference in Patient Hospitalization Rate | 0.40 Hospitalization Count | Standard Deviation 0.89 |
| Control | Difference in Patient Hospitalization Rate | 0.31 Hospitalization Count | Standard Deviation 0.62 |
Patient Hospitalization Days
For the 93 patients enrolled, the medical record was reviewed to capture hospitalization days. The aim was to explore the effect of caregiver outcomes (self-care, stress, coping, health status) on HF patient outcomes. We hypothesize that at 12 months, HF patients whose caregivers improve vs. not improve in self-care (regardless of treatment group) will have Lower hospitalization rates. A comparison of patients' hospitalization days which occurred between 6 and 12 month timepoints was conducted between those caregivers who exhibited a self care improvement from baseline to 6 month timepoint and those caregivers who did not exhibit a self care improvement from the baseline to 6 month timepoint.
Time frame: Count of patient hospitalization days which occurred between 6 and 12 month timepoints
Population: The study sample includes 93 patients total. Because analysis focuses on patient outcomes during months 6 to 12 of the study, 4 patients were excluded from analysis of patient health outcomes due to death occurring between baseline and six month study timepoint. Among the remaining 89 enrolled patients, 15 did not provide sufficient self care data from baseline to six months. Lastly, one outlier was excluded with 148 hospital days in 6 months.A sample of 73 patients was analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Patient Hospitalization Days | 3.85 hospitalization days count | Standard Deviation 8.71 |
| Control | Patient Hospitalization Days | 3.04 hospitalization days count | Standard Deviation 12.16 |
Patient Mortality Rates
For the 93 patients enrolled, the medical record was reviewed to measure mortality. The aim was to explore the effect of caregiver outcomes (self-care, stress, coping, health status) on HF patient outcomes. We hypothesize that at 12 months, HF patients whose caregivers improve vs. not improve in self-care (regardless of treatment group) would have lower mortality rates. A comparison of patient mortality occurring between 6 and 12 months was conducted between those caregivers who improved in self care during the intervention period (baseline to 6 months) and those caregivers who did not improve in self care.
Time frame: Patient mortality occurring between months 6-12 of the study (following the intervention period)
Population: The study sample includes 93 patients total. Because analysis focuses on patient outcomes during months 6 to 12 of the study, 4 patients were excluded from analysis of patient health outcomes due to death occurring between baseline and six month study timepoint. Among the remaining 89 enrolled patients, 15 did not provide sufficient data to determine whether self care improved from baseline to six months. Thus, a sample of 74 patients was analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Patient Mortality Rates | Alive | 47 Participants |
| Intervention | Patient Mortality Rates | Dead | 1 Participants |
| Control | Patient Mortality Rates | Alive | 26 Participants |
| Control | Patient Mortality Rates | Dead | 0 Participants |