4.4 Article

A Personal Decision Support System for Heart Failure Management (HeartMan): study protocol of the HeartMan randomized controlled trial

Journal

BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-018-0921-2

Keywords

mHealth; Disease management; Heart failure; Health-related quality of life; Decision support system

Funding

  1. Horizon 2020 Framework Program of the European Union [689660]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a highly prevalent chronic disease, for which there is no cure available. Therefore, improving disease management is crucial, with mobile health (mHealth) being a promising technology. The aim of the HeartMan study is to evaluate the effect of a personal mHealth system on top of standard care on disease management and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in HF. Methods: HeartMan is a randomized controlled 1:2 (control: intervention) proof-of-concept trial, which will enrol 120 stable ambulatory HF patients with reduced ejection fraction across two European countries. Participants in the intervention group are equipped with a multi-monitoring health platform with the HeartMan wristband sensor as the main component. HeartMan provides guidance through a decision support system on four domains of disease management (exercise, nutrition, medication adherence and mental support), adapted to the patient's medical and psychological profile. The primary endpoint of the study is improvement in self-care and HRQoL after a six-months intervention. Secondary endpoints are the effects of HeartMan on: behavioural outcomes, illness perception, clinical outcomes and mental state. Discussion: HeartMan is technologically the most innovative HF self-management support system to date. This trial will provide evidence whether modern mHealth technology, when used to its full extent, can improve HRQoL in HF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available