Cited by 131Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

A Mobile Health Intervention Supporting Heart Failure Patients and Their Informal Caregivers: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Open access
Piette, John D, Striplin, Dana, Marinec, Nicolle, Chen, Jenny, Trivedi, Ranak B, Aron, David C, Fisher, Lawrence, Aikens, James E·2015·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may improve heart failure (HF) self-care, but standard models do not address informal caregivers' needs for information about the patient's status or how the caregiver can help. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated mHealth support for caregivers of HF patients over and above the impact of a standard mHealth approach. METHODS: We identified 331 HF patients from Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics. All patients identified a "CarePartner" outside their household. Patients randomized to "standard mHealth" (n=165) received 12 months of weekly interactive voice response (IVR) calls including questions about their health and self-management. Based on patients' responses, they received tailored self-management advice, and their clinical team received structured fax alerts regarding serious health concerns. Patients randomized to "mHealth+CP" (n=166) received an identical intervention, but with automated emails sent to their CarePartner after each IVR call, including feedback about the patient's status and suggestions for how the CarePartner could support disease care. Self-care and symptoms were measured via 6- and 12-month telephone surveys with a research associate. Self-care and symptom data also were collected through the weekly IVR assessments. RESULTS: Participants were on average 67.8 years of age, 99% were male (329/331), 77% where white (255/331), and 59% were married (195/331). During 15,709 call-weeks of attempted IVR assessments, patients completed 90% of their calls with no difference in completion rates between arms. At both endpoints, composite quality of life scores were similar across arms. However, more mHealth+CP patients reported taking medications as prescribed at 6 months (8.8% more, 95% CI 1.2-16.5, P=.02) and 12 months (13.8% more, CI 3.7-23.8, P<.01), and 10.2% more mHealth+CP patients reported talking with their CarePartner at least twice per week at the 6-month follow-up (P=.048). mHealth+CP patients were less likely to report negative emotions during those interactions at both endpoints (both P<.05), were consistently more likely to report taking medications as prescribed during weekly IVR assessments, and also were less likely to report breathing problems or weight gains (all P<.05). Among patients with more depressive symptoms at enrollment, those randomized to mHealth+CP were more likely than standard mHealth patients to report excellent or very good general health during weekly IVR calls. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a relatively intensive model of IVR monitoring, self-management assistance, and clinician alerts, a model including automated feedback to an informal caregiver outside the household improved HF patients' medication adherence and caregiver communication. mHealth+CP may also decrease patients' risk of HF exacerbations related to shortness of breath and sudden weight gains. mHealth+CP may improve quality of life among patients with greater depressive symptoms. Weekly health and self-care monitoring via mHealth tools may identify intervention effects in mHealth trials that go undetected using typical, infrequent retrospective surveys. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00555360; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00555360 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Z4Tsk78B).

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 · 10.2196/jmir.4550

Cites

62 of 62 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?

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

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [24]Inglis SC Clark RA McAlister FA Ball J Lewinter C Cullington D Stewart S Cleland JGF Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 8 CD007228 10.1002/14651858.CD007228.pub2 20687083 20687083 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [46]Rolland Y Aquino JP Andrieu S Beard J Benetos A Berrut G Coll-Planas L Dartigues J F Dong B Forette F Franco A Franzoni S Hornez T Metais P Ruault G Stephan E Swagerty D Tolson D Volicer L Vellas B Morley J Identification of the main domains for quality of care and clinical research in nursing homes J Nutr Health Aging 2011 05 15 5 410 24 21528170 21528170
  3. [54]Rogers WH Stata Technical Bulletin 1993 2015-06-03 Regression standard errors in clustered samples http://wwwstatacom/support/faqs/statistics/stb13_rogerspdf 6Z1767371

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Piette, J. D., Striplin, D., Marinec, N., Chen, J., Trivedi, R. B., Aron, D. C., Fisher, L., & Aikens, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Piette, John D
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2015-06-10
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
e142
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1907187185
Cited by
131
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 3
FWCI
22.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IIR 07-185)
  • Health Services Research and Development
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK092926)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
heart failure, mobile health, informal caregivers, interactive voice response, medication adherence, self-care, caregiver involvement, caregiver-patient communication, quality of life, veterans, symptom monitoring
MeSH terms
Aged, Depression, Dyspnea, Female, Health Status, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Telephone, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Weight Gain, Caregivers, Telemedicine, Electronic Mail, Medication Adherence

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