University of Limerick Institutional Repository

Reporting of patient-centred outcomes in heart failure trials: are patient preferences being ignored?

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Blom, Jeanet
dc.contributor.author El Azzi, Maya
dc.contributor.author Wopereis, Daisy M.
dc.contributor.author Glynn, Liam G.
dc.contributor.author Muth, Christiane
dc.contributor.author van Driel, Mieke L.
dc.date.accessioned 2020-08-28T12:40:08Z
dc.date.available 2020-08-28T12:40:08Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.issn 1382-4147
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10344/9149
dc.description peer-reviewed en_US
dc.description.abstract Older people often suffer from multiple diseases. Therefore, universal cross-disease outcomes (e.g. functional status, quality of life, overall survival) are more relevant than disease-specific outcomes, and a range of potential outcomes are needed for medical decision-making. To assess how patient-relevant outcomes have penetrated randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reporting of these outcomes was reviewed in heart failure trials that included patients with multimorbidity. We systematically reviewed RCTs (Jan 2011-June 2012) and evaluated reported outcomes. Heart failure was chosen as condition of interest as this is common among older patients with multimorbidity. The main outcome was the proportion of RCTs reporting all-cause mortality, all-cause hospital admission, and outcomes in four domains of health, i.e. functional, signs and symptoms, psychological, and social domains. Of the 106 included RCTs, 50 (47 %) reported all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality and 29 (27 %) reported all-cause hospitalization and cardiovascular hospitalization. Of all trials, 68 (64 %) measured outcomes in the functional domain, 80 (75 %) in the domain of signs and symptoms, 65 (61 %) in the psychological domain, and 59 (56 %) in the social domain. Disease-specific instruments were more often used than non-disease-specific instruments. This review shows increasing attention for more patient-relevant outcomes; this is promising and indicates more awareness of the importance of a variety of outcomes desirable for patients. However, patients' individual goal attainments were universally absent. For continued progress in patient-centred care, efforts are needed to develop these outcomes, study their merits and pitfalls, and intensify their use in research. en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher Springer en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Heart Failure Revews;20, pp. 385-392
dc.subject heart failure en_US
dc.subject patient-reported outcomes en_US
dc.subject patient-centred en_US
dc.subject multimorbidity en_US
dc.title Reporting of patient-centred outcomes in heart failure trials: are patient preferences being ignored? en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article en_US
dc.type.supercollection all_ul_research en_US
dc.type.supercollection ul_published_reviewed en_US
dc.date.updated 2020-08-28T12:36:30Z
dc.description.version PUBLISHED
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/s10741-015-9476-9
dc.rights.accessrights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US
dc.internal.rssid 2859248
dc.internal.copyrightchecked Yes
dc.identifier.journaltitle Heart Failure Reviews
dc.description.status peer-reviewed


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ULIR


Browse

My Account

Statistics