Cited by 170Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHeart Failure Treatment and Management

Effect of an Early Palliative Care Telehealth Intervention vs Usual Care on Patients With Heart Failure: The ENABLE CHF-PC Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Bakitas, Marie A., Dionne-Odom, J. Nicholas, Ejem, Deborah B., Wells, Rachel, Azuero, Andres, Stockdill, Macy L., Keebler, Konda, Sockwell, Elizabeth +10 more·2020·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

Importance: National guidelines recommend early palliative care for patients with advanced heart failure, which disproportionately affects rural and minority populations. Objective: To determine the effect of an early palliative care telehealth intervention over 16 weeks on the quality of life, mood, global health, pain, and resource use of patients with advanced heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single-blind, intervention vs usual care randomized clinical trial was conducted from October 1, 2015, to May 31, 2019, among 415 patients 50 years or older with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure or American College of Cardiology stage C or D heart failure at a large Southeastern US academic tertiary medical center and a Veterans Affairs medical center serving high proportions of rural dwellers and African American individuals. Interventions: The ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention comprises an in-person palliative care consultation and 6 weekly nurse-coach telephonic sessions (20-40 minutes) and monthly follow-up for 48 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were quality of life (as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ]: score range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better perceived health status and clinical summary scores ≥50 are considered "fairly good" quality of life; and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative-14 [FACIT-Pal-14]: score range, 0-56; higher scores indicate better quality of life) and mood (as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]) over 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were global health (Patient Reported Outcome Measurement System Global Health), pain (Patient Reported Outcome Measurement System Pain Intensity and Interference), and resource use (hospital days and emergency department visits). Results: Of 415 participants (221 men; baseline mean [SD] age, 63.8 [8.5] years) randomized to ENABLE CHF-PC (n = 208) or usual care (n = 207), 226 (54.5%) were African American, 108 (26.0%) lived in a rural area, and 190 (45.8%) had a high-school education or less, and a mean (SD) baseline KCCQ score of 52.6 (21.0). At week 16, the mean (SE) KCCQ score improved 3.9 (1.3) points in the intervention group vs 2.3 (1.2) in the usual care group (difference, 1.6; SE, 1.7; d = 0.07 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.24]) and the mean (SE) FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 (0.6) points in the intervention group vs 0.2 (0.5) points in the usual care group (difference, 1.2; SE, 0.8; d = 0.12 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.28]). There were no relevant between-group differences in mood (HADS-anxiety, d = -0.02 [95% CI, -0.20 to 0.16]; HADS-depression, d = -0.09 [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.06]). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial with a majority African American sample and baseline good quality of life did not demonstrate improved quality of life or mood with a 16-week early palliative care telehealth intervention. However, pain intensity and interference (secondary outcomes) demonstrated a clinically important improvement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505425.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Employing nurse-led ENABLE model to guide patients and caregivers problem-solving, coping, decision-making, advance care planning, symptom management, self-care, and communication reduces the burden on family caregivers.

    “Employing nurse-led ENABLE model to gudie patients and caregivers problem-solving, coping, decision-making, advance care planning, symptom management, self-care, and communication, in turn reduce the burden on family caregivers [31, 32].”

    From Experiences of family caregivers of patients with end-of-life cancer during the transition from hospital to home palliative care: a qualitative study (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The introduction (page unavailable) describes ENABLE CHF-PC as nurse-led and says it teaches patients and family caregivers problem-solving, symptom and self-care management, communication, and care decision-making. It says caregiver intervention outcomes were reported separately; this paper does not establish the claimed reduction in family caregiver burden. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bakitas, M. A., Dionne-Odom, J. N., Ejem, D. B., Wells, R., Azuero, A., Stockdill, M. L., Keebler, K., Sockwell, E., Tims, S., Engler, S., Steinhauser, K., Kvale, E., Durant, R. W., Tucker, R. O., Burgio, K. L., Tallaj, J., Swetz, K. M., & Pamboukian, S. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham
  • Duke University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Bakitas, Marie A.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2020-09-01
Volume
180
Issue
9
Pages
1203
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3044975541
Cited by
170
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4
FWCI
12.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (TL1TR003106)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR013665, F31NR018782)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
Keywords
early palliative care, advanced heart failure, telemedicine, nurse coaching, quality of life, mood, anxiety and depression, pain, resource utilization (health care), rural population, African American patients, palliative care consultation, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Department of Veterans Affairs
MeSH terms
Affect, Aged, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Palliative Care, Quality of Life, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review