- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT05337293
Coping in Heart Failure Partnership Intervention (COPE-HF)
Coping in Heart Failure Partnership (COPE-HF): A Telephone-Based Intervention Study
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
The long-term goal of this research is to reduce morbidity and improve heart failure self-care and depression in heart failure patients. The initial step in meeting this goal is to pilot-test a telephone-based, tailored support and problem-solving intervention (COPE-HF Partnership) to improve HF self-care and depression in a sample of heart failure patients. The following research aims are to: 1) test the COPE-HF Partnership intervention and determine its feasibility and acceptability for managing HF-related problems; and 2) evaluate the preliminary effects of the COPE-HF Partnership intervention on heart failure self-care, depression, and healthcare utilization. This study will be guided by quantitative methods and include a repeated measures, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the 12-week COPE-Partnership intervention in a sample of heart failure patients (n = 90). Participants for this study will be recruited from from the cardiac/telemetry floors at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and Capital Regional Medical Center in Tallahassee, FL.
The target recruitment size was 90 participants based upon attrition rates reported in previous studies (35%) and the number of participants needed to provide trend data in preparation for a larger, more adequately powered clinical trial. Following verbal informed consent, all participants were screened for cognitive impairment using the 6 Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT) prior to baseline data collection. Data were collected using the following instruments: a Sociodemographic and Clinical Survey (baseline only), the Self-Care of HF Index (SCHFI; v. 6.2), the Heart Failure Symptom Survey (HFSS), the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List-12 (ISEL-12), the Social Problem-Solving Inventory Revised (SPSIR), Healthcare Utilization Survey, the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CESD), the Family APGAR.
Participants randomized to the intervention group participated in a telephone-based support and problem-solving training intervention over 12 weeks (Weeks 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12).
Participants randomized to the attention group received usual care plus telephone calls on the same schedule as the intervention group and consisted of a health check with information collected regarding recent healthcare usage.
Participants randomized to the control group received usual care from their healthcare providers and received heart failure self-care education upon discharge from the healthcare facility.
Follow-up data collection occurred at weeks 5, 9, 11, 13. All data were self-report and collected by a trained research assistant who collected study data over the telephone and marked participants answers on a computerized data spreadsheet. Data were analyzed using linear and multi-level modeling approaches.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Florida
-
Tallahassee, Florida, United States, 32308
- Tallahassee Memorial Hospital
-
Tallahassee, Florida, United States, 32308
- Capital Regional Medical Center
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Hospitalized with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF
- Undergoing medical treatment for HF
- BNP >100
- Able to read, speak, and understand English
- Reliable telephone access
- Live within 100 miles of acute care facility
Exclusion Criteria:
- Diagnosis of heart failure due to a correctable cause or condition
- Reduced life expectancy < 12 months
- History of cognitive impairment or a score >8 on the 6CIT
- Inability to provide informed consent
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: COPE-HF Partnership Intervention
Working with a trained registered nurse interventionist, participants in this arm were trained to use a 4-step problem-solving process to manage identified problems related to heart failure.
Heart failure self-care education and materials were provided as indicated based on specific identified problems.
|
Participants were trained to use a 4-step problem-solving process based on the Theory of Social Problem-Solving (TSPS) to manage HF-related problems experienced in the home over 12-weeks.
The core belief of TSPS is effective problem-solving requires a positive problem orientation (i.e., viewing problems as a challenge versus a threat) and elicits rational problem-solving versus avoidance or impulsivity/carelessness.
Problem-solving follows from a positive problem orientation and involves accurate problem identification, generation of appropriate potential solutions, active decision-making, and solution implementation and evaluation.
The goal of this intervention was to move HF patients toward a positive problem orientation and use of rational problem-solving strategies that support greater HF self-care and reduce depression.
The COPE-HF Partnership Intervention consisted of 1 home visit and 7 follow-up telehealth sessions led by a registered nurse interventionist.
|
Sham Comparator: Attention
Participants in this arm received telephone calls from a trained research assistant on the same schedule as the intervention group.
During these calls basic data were collected on several key areas of heart failure self-care.
No intervention or patient education took place during these calls.
|
Participants in the attention group received a sham intervention that consisted of scheduled telephone calls consistent with the timing of that received by the intervention group.
During these calls, basic information was gathered on key areas of heart failure self-care management and the frequency of healthcare usage.
No intervention or education was provided.
|
No Intervention: Usual Care
Participants in this arm received usual care from their healthcare providers and facility designated heart failure discharge education only.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Self-care Maintenance
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Self-care maintenance was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to treatment adherence and self-monitoring.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care maintenance.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Self-care Maintenance
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Self-care maintenance was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to treatment adherence and self-monitoring.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care maintenance.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Self-care Maintenance
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Self-care maintenance was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to treatment adherence and self-monitoring.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care maintenance.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Self-care Management
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Self-care management was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to symptom recognition and treatment and evaluation of treatment effectiveness.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care management.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Self-care Management
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Self-care management was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to symptom recognition and treatment and evaluation of treatment effectiveness.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care management.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Self-care Management
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Self-care management was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to symptom recognition and treatment and evaluation of treatment effectiveness.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care management.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Self-care Confidence
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Self-care confidence was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to one's confidence in their ability to perform self-care activities.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care confidence.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Self-care Confidence
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Self-care confidence was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to one's confidence in their ability to perform self-care activities.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care confidence.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Self-care Confidence
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Self-care confidence was self-reported and measured using the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) v. 6.2.
Items pertain to one's confidence in their ability to perform self-care activities.
Scores are standardized (0-100), with higher scores suggesting better self-care confidence.
Scores ≥ 70 are considered adequate, with an improvement of 8 or more considered clinically significant.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Depression
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Depression was self-reported and assessed using the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D).
The CES-D measures the presence of depression.
Scores range from 0-60, with higher scores indicative of more symptoms of depression.
A cut-off score ≥ 16 indicates depressed versus non-depressed.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Depression
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Depression was self-reported and assessed using the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D).
The CES-D measures the presence of depression.
Scores range from 0-60, with higher scores indicative of more symptoms of depression.
A cut-off score ≥ 16 indicates depressed versus non-depressed.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Depression
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Depression was self-reported and assessed using the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D).
The CES-D measures the presence of depression.
Scores range from 0-60, with higher scores indicative of more symptoms of depression.
A cut-off score ≥ 16 indicates depressed versus non-depressed.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Healthcare utilization
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Healthcare utilization was determined by the frequency of emergency department visits and 30-day readmissions for HF and assessed via self-report.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Healthcare utilization
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Healthcare utilization was determined by the frequency of emergency department visits and 30-day readmissions for HF and assessed via self-report.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Healthcare utilization
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Healthcare utilization was determined by the frequency of emergency department visits and 30-day readmissions for HF and assessed via self-report.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Heart Failure Symptoms
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Symptoms of HF were assessed using the Heart Failure Symptom Survey (HFSS).
This survey contains 14 symptoms commonly experienced by those with HF.
Participants rate each symptom according to 4 domains (i.e., frequency, severity, interference with physical activity, and interference with enjoyment of life) based upon the last 7 days.
Higher scores indicate more of the respective domain in relation to the particular symptom.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Heart Failure Symptoms
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Symptoms of HF were assessed using the Heart Failure Symptom Survey (HFSS).
This survey contains 14 symptoms commonly experienced by those with HF.
Participants rate each symptom according to 4 domains (i.e., frequency, severity, interference with physical activity, and interference with enjoyment of life) based upon the last 7 days.
Higher scores indicate more of the respective domain in relation to the particular symptom.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Heart Failure Symptoms
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Symptoms of HF were assessed using the Heart Failure Symptom Survey (HFSS).
This survey contains 14 symptoms commonly experienced by those with HF.
Participants rate each symptom according to 4 domains (i.e., frequency, severity, interference with physical activity, and interference with enjoyment of life) based upon the last 7 days.
Higher scores indicate more of the respective domain in relation to the particular symptom.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Social Problem-Solving
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Problem-solving was self-reported and assessed using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory Revised (SPSIR) which measures problem orientation and problem-solving style.
In addition to a total score, there are 5 sub-scales: positive problem orientation, negative problem orientation, rational problem-solving, impulsivity/carelessness, and avoidance style.
Higher scores on each sub-scale suggest more of the problem-solving characteristic.
Higher total scores suggest more adaptive problem-solving, while lower scores indicate more maladaptive problem-solving.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Social Problem-Solving
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Problem-solving was self-reported and assessed using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory Revised (SPSIR) which measures problem orientation and problem-solving style.
In addition to a total score, there are 5 sub-scales: positive problem orientation, negative problem orientation, rational problem-solving, impulsivity/carelessness, and avoidance style.
Higher scores on each sub-scale suggest more of the problem-solving characteristic.
Higher total scores suggest more adaptive problem-solving, while lower scores indicate more maladaptive problem-solving.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Social Problem-Solving
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Problem-solving was self-reported and assessed using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory Revised (SPSIR) which measures problem orientation and problem-solving style.
In addition to a total score, there are 5 sub-scales: positive problem orientation, negative problem orientation, rational problem-solving, impulsivity/carelessness, and avoidance style.
Higher scores on each sub-scale suggest more of the problem-solving characteristic.
Higher total scores suggest more adaptive problem-solving, while lower scores indicate more maladaptive problem-solving.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Social Support
Time Frame: baseline, 5 weeks
|
Social support was self-reported and assessed using the Interpersonal Support and Evaluation List - 12 (ISEL-12) which measures perceived belonging, tangible, and appraisal support.
Scores range from 0-36, with higher scores suggesting a higher perception of available support.
|
baseline, 5 weeks
|
Social Support
Time Frame: baseline, 9 weeks
|
Social support was self-reported and assessed using the Interpersonal Support and Evaluation List - 12 (ISEL-12) which measures perceived belonging, tangible, and appraisal support.
Scores range from 0-36, with higher scores suggesting a higher perception of available support.
|
baseline, 9 weeks
|
Social Support
Time Frame: baseline, 13 weeks
|
Social support was self-reported and assessed using the Interpersonal Support and Evaluation List - 12 (ISEL-12) which measures perceived belonging, tangible, and appraisal support.
Scores range from 0-36, with higher scores suggesting a higher perception of available support.
|
baseline, 13 weeks
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Lucinda J Graven, PhD APRN, Florida State University
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2015.14571
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Heart Failure
-
Tufts Medical CenterMetro West Medical CenterCompletedCongestive Heart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart FailureUnited States
-
Abbott Medical DevicesCompletedHeart Failure | Heart Failure, Diastolic | Heart Failure, Systolic | Heart Failure NYHA Class II | Heart Failure NYHA Class III | Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure NYHA Class IV | Heart Failure With Normal Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure; With Decompensation | Heart Failure...United States, Canada
-
Manipal UniversityUnknownHeart Failure | Decompensated Heart Failure | Acute Heart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart FailureIndia
-
VA Eastern Colorado Health Care SystemNational Institute on Aging (NIA)CompletedHeart Failure | Heart Failure, Diastolic | Heart Failure, Systolic | Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure; With Decompensation | Heart Failure,Congestive | Heart Failure AcuteUnited States
-
University Hospital, MontpellierCompletedHeart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart Failure Stage CFrance
-
Wake Forest UniversityCompletedHeart Failure, Congestive | Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
-
Wake Forest UniversityNational Institute on Aging (NIA)CompletedHeart Failure, Congestive | Diastolic Heart FailureUnited States
-
Giresun UniversityIstanbul University - Cerrahpasa (IUC)RecruitingHeart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart FailureTurkey
-
Lancaster General HospitalLouise von Hess Medical Research InstituteEnrolling by invitationDiastolic Heart FailureUnited States
-
University of British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); Duke University; St. Paul's Hospital... and other collaboratorsActive, not recruitingHeart Diseases | Heart Failure | Transplant; Failure, Heart | Heart Transplant Failure and Rejection | Heart Failure,Congestive | Transplant FailureCanada, United States
Clinical Trials on COPE-HF Partnership Intervention
-
Duke UniversityNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)Completed
-
New York UniversityActive, not recruiting
-
Yale UniversityNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)Not yet recruiting
-
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterActive, not recruitingGastrointestinal Cancer | Nurse's Role | Gastrointestinal DiseaseUnited States
-
University of PittsburghCompletedAsthmaUnited States
-
University of Dublin, Trinity CollegeRecruitingPhysical InactivityIreland
-
Emory UniversityCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCompletedWeight Change, BodyUnited States
-
University of HawaiiNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); National Association of... and other collaboratorsNot yet recruitingHypertension | Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus | Dyslipidemia | Pre-diabetes | Cardiometabolic Syndrome | Weight Loss TrialUnited States
-
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New DelhiRecruitingTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation | Dyslexia | Specific Learning DisabilityIndia
-
Medtronic Cardiac Rhythm and Heart FailureRecruitingHeart Failure NYHA Class II | Heart Failure NYHA Class IIIUnited States