Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 621

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Update on the Self-care of Heart Failure Index

Open access
Riegel, Barbara, Lee, Christopher S., Dickson, Victoria Vaughan, Carlson, Beverly·2009·Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) is a measure of self-care defined as a naturalistic decision-making process involving the choice of behaviors that maintain physiological stability (maintenance) and the response to symptoms when they occur (management). In the 5 years since the SCHFI was published, we have added items, refined the response format of the maintenance scale and the SCHFI scoring procedure, and modified our advice about how to use the scores. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to update users on these changes. METHODS: In this article, we address 8 specific questions about reliability, item difficulty, frequency of administration, learning effects, social desirability, validity, judgments of self-care adequacy, clinically relevant change, and comparability of the various versions. RESULTS: The addition of items to the self-care maintenance scale did not significantly change the coefficient alpha, providing evidence that the structure of the instrument is more powerful than the individual items. No learning effect is associated with repeated administration. Social desirability is minimal. More evidence is provided of the validity of the SCHFI. A score of 70 or greater can be used as the cut-point to judge self-care adequacy, although evidence is provided that benefit occurs at even lower levels of self-care. A change in a scale score more than one-half of an SD is considered clinically relevant. Because of the standardized scores, results obtained with prior versions can be compared with those from later versions. CONCLUSION: The SCHFI v.6 is ready to be used by investigators. By publication in this format, we are putting the instrument in the public domain; permission is not required to use the SCHFI.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/jcn.0b013e3181b4baa0

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 621

Metadata

Authors
Riegel, B., Lee, C. S., Dickson, V. V., & Carlson, B.
Venue
Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
Published
2009-11
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
485-497
ISSN
0889-4655 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036034000
Cited by
621
References
32
FWCI
63.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Update on the Self-care of Heart Failure Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/jcn.0b013e3181b4baa0
The paper
Riegel, B., Lee, C. S., Dickson, V. V., & Carlson, B. (2009). An Update on the Self-care of Heart Failure Index. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1097/jcn.0b013e3181b4baa0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.