Flashcard library · Medicine & Health · PaperFren
Literacy-friendly HF self-care trial
A literacy-sensitive outpatient heart failure education program improved knowledge and self-efficacy but did not clearly cut hospitalizations or quality-of-life scores versus usual care.
Keep what you just learned
Save these 11 cards to your NoteFren library. Your first review starts right away, and each card links back to the study it came from.
What primary clinical composite did the trial track at 12 months?
Death or all-cause readmission, along with heart failure-related quality of life.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
How was “low literacy” defined?
Inadequate literacy range on the S-TOFHLA.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
What practical skills were taught in the education session?
Recognizing exacerbation signs, daily weight checks, and diuretic dose adjustment.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
What reading level targeted the intervention booklet?
Written below the 6th grade level and pre-tested in focus groups and a pilot.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
What did control patients receive?
A general HF pamphlet at about 7th-grade reading level plus usual primary care.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
How often were outcomes assessed?
At 6 and 12 months via interviews and chart review.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
What happened to combined hospitalization or death rates?
61% control vs 42% intervention, not statistically significant (p = 0.13).
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
Did HF-related quality of life improve with the program?
Adjusted analyses suggested no meaningful QoL effect (about 2 points; p = 0.59).
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
Which secondary outcome clearly favored the intervention?
Heart-failure knowledge improved more, by 12 percentage points on average.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
How large was the enrolled sample?
127 patients met eligibility and agreed to participate.
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified
Did cardiac-specific hospitalizations differ?
No meaningful difference (39% control vs 34% intervention; p = 0.55).
Source: A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170] · DOI · quote verified