Cited by 3Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementMedication Adherence and ComplianceChronic Disease Management Strategies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

063 Assessing treatment burden in chronic heart failure patients

Gallacher, KI, May, C, Montori, VM, Mair, FS·2010·BCS Abstracts 2010

Abstract

Introduction Non-adherence is a well recognised avoidable precipitant of emergency admissions in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. CHF patients often have multiple co-morbidities, each with complicated management plans. “Treatment burden” is the “work” undertaken by patients managing a chronic condition, and includes understanding treatments, engaging with others, taking complicated medication regimes, enacting lifestyle advice and attending hospital appointments. Our aim is develop an understanding of treatment burden in CHF patients, enabling us to identify points and types of intervention that would reduce non-adherence and potentially improve outcomes. Methods Secondary qualitative analysis of 46 interviews with CHF patients: 30 male; 20 female; aged between 45 and 88 years (mean age 73 yrs). Using normalisation process theory (NPT) as a coding framework, the data were categorised into the four NPT domains: coherence; cognitive participation; collective action; reflexive monitoring. Each of these domains has four subcategories as shown in Abstract 63 Table 1. Two researchers analysed all the transcripts and discussed any disagreements. Any dispute was resolved by a third party. Any data that fell outside of the NPT were noted. A taxonomy of “treatment” work was then created. There are four domains – Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action, Reflexive Monitoring. Each has four subcategories. Abbreviations are used to identify each subcategory e.g. for the domain “Coherence (CO)”, subcategory “Differentiation (DI)” is written “CODI”. Results Workload or burden of treatment was described by patients across all four domains. Very little data fell outside the NPT framework, and any that did was emotional work which is not included in NPT. Abstract 63 Figure 1 shows the frequency of different types of burden, with the scale reflecting the number of times a category was recorded (see Abstract 63 Table 1 for key of categories). The most frequent category of work mentioned was enacting work such as taking multiple medications or attending multiple hospital appointments, the least mentioned was keeping up to date with current treatments. A taxonomy of treatment burden was constructed. Conclusion and Implications We have created a conceptual model of treatment burden in CHF patients which can be used to inform the development of a scale to measure treatment burden.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/hrt.2010.195966.11

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gallacher, K., May, C., Montori, V., & Mair, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
  • University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
ORCID
May, C
Venue
BCS Abstracts 2010
Published
2010-06
Pages
A37.2-A38
OpenAlex
W1960351709
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2018: 1
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
chronic heart failure, treatment burden, medication adherence, patient load, Normalisation Process Theory, hospital appointments, medication management, conceptual model

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