Self-management theories, models and frameworks in patients with chronic heart failure: A scoping review.
Jie Chen, Wei-Xiang Luo, Xiu-Fen Yang and 4 others
PMID 38268258WHAT IT FOUND
Self-management theories for chronic heart failure cover symptom monitoring, medication, fluid and salt limits, confidence and social support.
Fourteen studies were mapped, but many theories were not validated, so this is not proof that any framework improves outcomes.
Key findings
01Fourteen included studies were grouped into middle-range theory, situation-specific theory, conceptual model, hypothetic regression model and novice-to-expert self-care model.
02Riegel's situation-specific theory was updated in 2016 to describe self-care as real-life decision-making, including maintaining physiological stability and responding to symptoms, and in 2022 to emphasize interactions among problem, person and environment.
03The authors report that some included theories were not validated and that they could not assess study quality because the included article types varied.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review searched only English and Chinese studies, so relevant work in other languages may be missing. Some included theories were not validated, so the review cannot show that they are applicable or effective. The authors did not assess quality or bias because the included articles were reviews, meta-analyses, meta-integrations and descriptive studies. It maps self-management theories rather than testing whether any theory improves patient outcomes.
Declared interests
No funding was reported, and the authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that a self-management framework reduces readmission or mortality. It is a scoping review of theories, and the authors state that some included theories were not validated and that study quality could not be assessed.