Skip to content

Improving Self-care of Heart Failure Caregivers

Improving Self-Care of Informal Caregivers of Adults With Heart Failure

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03988621
Enrollment
343
Registered
2019-06-17
Start date
2019-08-23
Completion date
2023-10-19
Last updated
2025-02-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Heart Failure

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

BEHAVIORALViCCY

Virtual Caregiver Coach for You

Sponsors

University of Pennsylvania
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)

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

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleThe 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 ScaleThe 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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireThe 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) ScoresMeasured at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months; primary analysis baseline to 12 monthsThe 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 EventsData 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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in the Patients' Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Measured With the SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Derived From the Short Form-36QALYs 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 RatesPatient 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 RateCount 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 DaysCount of patient hospitalization days which occurred between 6 and 12 month timepointsFor 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

ArmCount
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
Total343

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up1617
Overall StudyPatient death15
Overall StudyPatient Lost to Follow Up1515
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject147

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalInterventionControl
Active Coping Subscale22.7 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 Subscale9.9 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 Participants5 Participants4 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
Not Hispanic or Latino
239 Participants119 Participants120 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
Unknown or Not Reported
2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
Not Hispanic or Latino
91 Participants41 Participants50 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Health Self-care Neglect (HSCN) scale4.9 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 day8.1 Hours
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5
8.2 Hours
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5
7.9 Hours
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.5
Minimization Coping Subscale12.3 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 Scale26.2 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 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
Asian
4 Participants1 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
Black or African American
74 Participants35 Participants39 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
More than one race
11 Participants6 Participants5 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
Unknown or Not Reported
6 Participants4 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver Data
White
155 Participants79 Participants76 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
Black or African American
20 Participants8 Participants12 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
More than one race
2 Participants2 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Patient Data
White
68 Participants31 Participants37 Participants
Self Care Maintenance68.5 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 Participants106 Participants107 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Caregiver Data
Male
37 Participants19 Participants18 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Patient Data
Female
20 Participants10 Participants10 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Patient Data
Male
73 Participants32 Participants41 Participants
Short Form (SF)-36- Mental Health Status42.1 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 Status47.6 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 caregiver3.25 years3.75 years3.00 years

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 1250 / 12515 / 4212 / 51
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 1250 / 1250 / 290 / 31
serious
Total, serious adverse events
9 / 12513 / 12521 / 4226 / 51

Outcome results

Primary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 3 Month Score3.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.07
InterventionChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 9 Month Score2.34 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.99
InterventionChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 6 Month Score2.67 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.09
InterventionChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 12 Month Score2.57 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.1
InterventionChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN Baseline Score4.89 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.07
ControlChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 12 Month Score3.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.17
ControlChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN Baseline Score4.97 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.12
ControlChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 3 Month Score3.50 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.17
ControlChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 6 Month Score3.49 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.16
ControlChange in the Health Self-Care Neglect (HSCN) ScaleHSCN 9 Month Score3.02 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.24
p-value: 0.0495% CI: [-1.27, -0.03]Mixed Models Analysis
Primary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance ScaleSelf Care Maintenance, Baseline Score68.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.09
InterventionChange in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance ScaleSelf Care Maintenance, 6 Month Score79.86 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.29
InterventionChange in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance ScaleSelf Care Maintenance, 12 Month Score76.62 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.26
ControlChange in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance ScaleSelf Care Maintenance, Baseline Score68.15 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.73
ControlChange in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance ScaleSelf Care Maintenance, 6 Month Score72.85 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.35
ControlChange in the Self-Care Inventory, Maintenance ScaleSelf Care Maintenance, 12 Month Score74.58 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.61
p-value: 0.0195% CI: [1.12, 8.98]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Physical Component Baseline Score48.02 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.11
InterventionChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Physical Component 6 Month Score47.84 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.84
InterventionChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Physical Component 12 Month Score49.10 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.33
InterventionChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Mental Component Baseline Score43.17 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.27
InterventionChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Mental Component 6 Month Score48.18 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.43
InterventionChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Mental Component 12 Month Score46.87 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.27
ControlChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Mental Component 6 Month Score42.73 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.1
ControlChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Physical Component Baseline Score47.25 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.57
ControlChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Mental Component Baseline Score41.06 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.21
ControlChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Physical Component 6 Month Score48.18 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.52
ControlChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Mental Component 12 Month Score44.33 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.78
ControlChange in Health Status as Measured by the Short Form-36 (Physical and Mental Health Status)SF36 Physical Component 12 Month Score47.57 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.95
Comparison: Physical Health Scorep-value: 0.2795% CI: [-3.68, 1.04]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Mental Health Scorep-value: 0.0495% CI: [0.17, 6.53]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) ScoresBaseline SF-6D0.696 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.105
InterventionChange in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores6 Month SF-6D0.733 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.119
InterventionChange in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores12 Month SF-6D0.731 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.107
ControlChange in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) ScoresBaseline SF-6D0.675 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.132
ControlChange in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores6 Month SF-6D0.688 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.128
ControlChange in the Caregivers' SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Scores12 Month SF-6D0.690 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.116
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)PSS Baseline Score25.91 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.48
InterventionChange in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)PSS 6 Month Score19.73 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.97
InterventionChange in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)PSS 12 Month Score20.76 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.39
ControlChange in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)PSS Baseline Score26.49 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.73
ControlChange in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)PSS 6 Month Score25.20 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.71
ControlChange in the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)PSS 12 Month Score24.00 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.02
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-6.48, -2.52]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 12 Month Score8.61 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.32
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 12 Month Score26.31 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.59
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 3 Month Score8.95 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.72
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping Baseline Score11.78 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.39
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 3 Month Score24.88 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.95
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 3 Month Score11.91 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.29
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 9 Month Score9.84 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.73
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 6 Month Score12.16 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.36
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 6 Month Score27.36 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.54
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 9 Month Score11.95 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.58
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 6 Month Score8.82 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.86
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 12 Month Score12.03 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.14
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 9 Month Score27.99 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.71
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping Baseline Score22.56 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.14
InterventionChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping Baseline Score9.04 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.86
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping Baseline Score22.92 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.29
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping Baseline Score10.72 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.37
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 3 Month Score9.01 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.22
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 6 Month Score11.85 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.18
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 9 Month Score10.89 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.83
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireAvoidance Coping 12 Month Score10.54 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.1
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 3 Month Score21.52 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.06
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 6 Month Score25.50 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.66
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 9 Month Score27.55 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.09
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireActive Coping 12 Month Score26.00 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.43
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping Baseline Score12.89 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.64
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 3 Month Score11.99 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.79
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 6 Month Score13.87 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.66
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 9 Month Score12.15 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.73
ControlChange in the Ways of Coping QuestionnaireMinimize Coping 12 Month Score13.18 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.98
Comparison: Active Coping Subscalep-value: 0.09995% CI: [-0.41, 4.73]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Avoidance Coping Subscalep-value: 0.2595% CI: [-2.38, 0.62]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Minimization Coping Subscalep-value: 0.6895% CI: [-1.81, 1.18]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-3 Month247.539 DollarsStandard Deviation 1223.542
InterventionDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-9 Month1347.139 DollarsStandard Deviation 3018.211
InterventionDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-6 Month1155.871 DollarsStandard Deviation 2577.653
InterventionDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-12 Month1811.245 DollarsStandard Deviation 3228.807
InterventionDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-1 Month59.703 DollarsStandard Deviation 281.566
ControlDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-12 Month3121.488 DollarsStandard Deviation 8123.811
ControlDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-1 Month67.004 DollarsStandard Deviation 379.774
ControlDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-3 Month955.193 DollarsStandard Deviation 4262.877
ControlDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-6 Month1585.167 DollarsStandard Deviation 5448.238
ControlDifference in Caregivers' Hospital and Provider EventsHealthcare Cost 0-9 Month2007.453 DollarsStandard Deviation 6889.446
Other Pre-specified

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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionChange in the Patients' Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Measured With the SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Derived From the Short Form-360.67 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.11
ControlChange in the Patients' Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Measured With the SF-6D (Short Form Six-dimension) Derived From the Short Form-360.68 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.1
p-value: 0.6791t-test, 2 sided
Other Pre-specified

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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionDifference in Patient Hospitalization Rate0.40 Hospitalization CountStandard Deviation 0.89
ControlDifference in Patient Hospitalization Rate0.31 Hospitalization CountStandard Deviation 0.62
p-value: 0.543395% CI: [0.5153, 3.5218]Regression, zero inflated poisson
Other Pre-specified

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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
InterventionPatient Hospitalization Days3.85 hospitalization days countStandard Deviation 8.71
ControlPatient Hospitalization Days3.04 hospitalization days countStandard Deviation 12.16
p-value: 0.917395% CI: [0.7766, 1.3247]Zero-inflated poisson regression
Other Pre-specified

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.

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
InterventionPatient Mortality RatesAlive47 Participants
InterventionPatient Mortality RatesDead1 Participants
ControlPatient Mortality RatesAlive26 Participants
ControlPatient Mortality RatesDead0 Participants
p-value: 0.6486Fisher Exact

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Jul 27, 2026