Quality and availability of consumer information on heart failure in Australia

mHealth education interventions in heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic disease with significant impact on quality of life and presents many challenges to those diagnosed with the condition, due to a seemingly complex daily regimen of self-care which includes medications, monitoring of weight and symptoms, identification of signs of deterioration and follow-up and interaction with multiple healthcare services. Education is vital for understanding the importance of this regimen, and adhering to it. Traditionally, education has been provided to people with heart failure in a face-to-face manner, either in a community or a hospital setting, using paper-based materials or video/DVD presentations. In an age of rapidly-evolving technology and uptake of smartphones and tablet devices, mHealth-based technology (defined by the World Health Organization as mobile and wireless technologies to achieve health objectives) is an innovative way to provide health education which has the benefit of being able to reach people who are unable or unwilling to access traditional heart failure education programmes and services.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and quantify the potential benefits and harms of mHealth-delivered education for people with heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an extensive search of bibliographic databases and registries (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal), using terms to identify HF, education and mHealth. We searched all databases from their inception to October 2019 and imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies if they were conducted as a randomised controlled trial (RCT), involving adults (≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of HF. We included trials comparing mHealth-delivered education such as internet and web-based education programmes for use on smartphones and tablets (including apps) and other mobile devices, SMS messages and social media-delivered education programmes, versus usual HF care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data from all included studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data and the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We include five RCTs (971 participants) of mHealth-delivered education interventions for people with HF in this review. The number of trial participants ranged from 28 to 512 participants. Mean age of participants ranged from 60 years to 75 years, and 63% of participants across the studies were men. Studies originated from Australia, China, Iran, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Most studies included participants with symptomatic HF, NYHA Class II - III. Three studies addressed HF knowledge, revealing that the use of mHealth-delivered education programmes showed no evidence of a difference in HF knowledge compared to usual care (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.40, P = 0.51, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 411 participants; low-quality evidence). One study assessing self-efficacy reported that both study groups had high levels of self-efficacy at baseline and uncertainty in the evidence for the intervention (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.77; P = 0.31; 1 study, 29 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three studies evaluated HF self-care using different scales. We did not pool the studies due to the heterogenous nature of the outcome measures, and the evidence is uncertain. None of the studies reported adverse events. Four studies examined health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There was uncertainty in the evidence for the use of mHealth-delivered education on HRQoL (MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.35 to 2.15; P = 0.93, I² = 61%; 4 studies, 942 participants; very low-quality evidence). Three studies reported on HF-related hospitalisation. The use of mHealth-delivered education may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospitalisation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.06; P = 0.10, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 894 participants; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the studies due to limitations in study design and execution, heterogeneity, wide confidence intervals and fewer than 500 participants in the analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that the use of mHealth-delivered educational interventions for people with HF shows no evidence of a difference in HF knowledge; uncertainty in the evidence for self-efficacy, self-care and health-related quality of life; and may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospitalisations. The identification of studies currently underway and those awaiting classification indicate that this is an area of research from which further evidence will emerge in the short and longer term.

Phase 4 Studies in Heart Failure - What is Done and What is Needed?

Congestive heart failure (CHF) therapeutics is generated through a well-described evidence generating process. Phases 1 - 3 of this process are required prior to approval and widespread clinical use. Phase 3 in almost all cases is a methodologically sound randomized controlled trial (RCT). After this phase it is generally accepted that the treatment has a significant, independent and prognostically beneficial effect on the pathophysiological process. A major criticism of RCTs is the population to whom the result is applicable. When this population is significantly different from the trial cohort the external validity comes into question. Should the continuation of the evidence generating process continue these problems might be identified. Post marketing surveillance through phase 4 and comparative effectiveness studies through phase 5 trials are often underperformed in comparison to the RCT. These processes can help identify remote adverse events and define new hypotheses for community level benefits. This review is aimed at exploring the post-marketing scene for CHF therapeutics from an Australian health system perspective. We explore the phases of clinical trials, the level of evidence currently available and options for ensuring greater accountability for community level CHF clinical outcomes.

Self Managing Heart Failure in Remote Australia - Translating Concepts into Clinical Practice

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is an ambulatory health care condition characterized by episodes of decompensation and is usually without cure. It is a leading cause for morbidity and mortality and the lead cause for hospital admissions in older patients in the developed world. The long-term requirement for medical care and pharmaceuticals contributes to significant health care costs. CHF management follows a hierarchy from physician prescription to allied health, predominately nurse-led, delivery of care. Health services are easier to access in urban compared to rural settings. The differentials for more specialized services could be even greater. Remote Australia is thus faced with unique challenges in delivering CHF best practice. Chronic disease self-management programs (CDSMP) were designed to increase patient participation in their health and alleviate stress on health systems. There have been CDSMP successes with some diseases, although challenges still exist for CHF. These challenges are amplified in remote Australia due to geographic and demographic factors, increased burden of disease, and higher incidence of comorbidities. In this review we explore CDSMP for CHF and the challenges for our region.

Heart Failure in Minority Populations - Impediments to Optimal Treatment in Australian Aborigines

Chronic heart failure (CHF) among Aboriginal/Indigenous Australians is endemic. There are also grave concerns for outcomes once acquired. This point is compounded by a lack of prospective and objective studies to plan care. To capture the essence of the presented topic it is essential to broadly understand Indigenous health. Key words such as ‘worsening’, ‘gaps’, ‘need to do more’, ‘poorly studied’, or ‘future studies should inform’ occur frequently in contrast to CHF research for almost all other groups. This narrative styled opinion piece attempts to discuss future directions for CHF care for Indigenous Australians. We provide a synopsis of the problem, highlight the treatment gaps, and define the impediments that present hurdles in optimising CHF care for Indigenous Australians.

Bedside-to-Bench Translational Research for Chronic Heart Failure: Creating an Agenda for Clients Who Do Not Meet Trial Enrollment Criteria

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a chronic condition usually without cure. Significant developments, particularly those addressing pathophysiology, mainly started at the bench. This approach has seen many clinical observations initially explored at the bench, subsequently being trialed at the bedside, and eventually translated into clinical practice. This evidence, however, has several limitations, importantly the generalizability or external validity. We now acknowledge that clinical management of CHF is more complicated than merely translating bench-to-bedside evidence in a linear fashion. This review aims to help explore this evolving area from an Australian perspective. We describe the continuation of research once core evidence is established and describe how clinician-scientist collaboration with a bedside-to-bench view can help enhance evidence translation and generalizability. We describe why an extension of the available evidence or generating new evidence is occasionally needed to address the increasingly diverse cohort of patients. Finally, we explore some of the tools used by basic scientists and clinicians to develop evidence and describe the ones we feel may be most beneficial.