↓ Skip to main content

Optimising self-care support for people with heart failure and their caregivers: development of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention using intervention…

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Optimising self-care support for people with heart failure and their caregivers: development of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention using intervention mapping
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0075-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin J. Greaves, Jennifer Wingham, Carolyn Deighan, Patrick Doherty, Jennifer Elliott, Wendy Armitage, Michelle Clark, Jackie Austin, Charles Abraham, Julia Frost, Sally Singh, Kate Jolly, Kevin Paul, Louise Taylor, Sarah Buckingham, Russell Davis, Hasnain Dalal, Rod S. Taylor, on behalf of the REACH-HF investigators

Abstract

We aimed to establish the support needs of people with heart failure and their caregivers and develop an intervention to improve their health-related quality of life. We used intervention mapping to guide the development of our intervention. We identified "targets for change" by synthesising research evidence and international guidelines and consulting with patients, caregivers and health service providers. We then used behaviour change theory, expert opinion and a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques, to identify barriers to and facilitators of change and to match intervention strategies to each target. A patient and public involvement group helped to identify patient and caregiver needs, refine the intervention objectives and strategies and deliver training to the intervention facilitators. A feasibility study (ISRCTN25032672) involving 23 patients, 12 caregivers and seven trained facilitators at four sites assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and quality of delivery and generated ideas to help refine the intervention. The Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention is a comprehensive self-care support programme comprising the "Heart Failure Manual", a choice of two exercise programmes for patients, a "Family and Friends Resource" for caregivers, a "Progress Tracker" tool and a facilitator training course. The main targets for change are engaging in exercise training, monitoring for symptom deterioration, managing stress and anxiety, managing medications and understanding heart failure. Secondary targets include managing low mood and smoking cessation. The intervention is facilitated by trained healthcare professionals with specialist cardiac experience over 12 weeks, via home and telephone contacts. The feasibility study found high levels of satisfaction and engagement with the intervention from facilitators, patients and caregivers. Intervention fidelity analysis and stakeholder feedback suggested that there was room for improvement in several areas, especially in terms of addressing caregivers' needs. The REACH-HF materials were revised accordingly. We have developed a comprehensive, evidence-informed, theoretically driven self-care and rehabilitation intervention that is grounded in the needs of patients and caregivers. A randomised controlled trial is underway to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in people with heart failure and their caregivers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 182 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 15%
Student > Master 25 14%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 55 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 19%
Psychology 19 10%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 59 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2020.
All research outputs
#5,298,530
of 25,859,234 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#331
of 1,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,295
of 383,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,859,234 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.