Characteristics of self-care interventions for patients with a chronic condition: A scoping review

Background: Self-care is a fundamental element of treatment for patients with a chronic condition and a major focus of many interventions. A large body of research exists describing different types of self-care interventions, but these studies have never been compared across conditions. Examination of heterogeneous interventions could provide insights into effective approaches that should be used in diverse patient populations. Objectives: To provide a comprehensive and standardized cross-condition overview of interventions to enhance self-care in patients with a chronic condition. Specific aims were to: 1) identify what self-care concepts and behaviors are evaluated in self-care interventions; 2) classify and quantify heterogeneity in mode and type of delivery; 3) quantify the behavior change techniques used to enhance self-care behavior; and 4) assess the dose of self-care interventions delivered. Design: Scoping review DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases - PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL - were searched from January 2008 through January 2019. Eligibility criteria for study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with concealed allocation to the intervention were included if they compared a behavioral or educational self- care intervention to usual care or another self-care intervention and were conducted in adults. Nine common chronic conditions were included: hypertension, coronary artery disease, arthritis, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, stroke, asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diagnoses that are psychiatric (e.g. schizophrenia), acute rather than chronic, or benefitting little from self-care (e.g. dementia) were excluded. Studies had to be reported in English with full-text available. Results: 9309 citations were considered and 233 studies were included in the final review. Most studies addressed type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 85; 36%), hypertension (n = 32; 14%) or heart failure (n = 27; 12%). The majority (97%) focused on healthy behaviors like physical activity (70%), dietary intake (59%), and medication management (52%). Major deficits found in self-care interventions included a lack of attention to the psychological consequences of chronic illness, technology and behavior change techniques were rarely used, few studies focused on helping patients manage signs and symptoms, and the interventions were rarely innovative. Research reporting was generally poor. Conclusions: Major gaps in targeted areas of self-care were identified. Opportunities exist to improve the quality and reporting of future self-care intervention research. Registration: The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (#123,719)

Cross-cultural assessment of the self-care of chronic illness inventory: a psychometric evaluation

Background: Self-care refers to behaviors that individuals adopt to prevent or maintain the stability of an illness (self-care maintenance), to monitor signs and symptoms (self-care monitoring), and to respond to signs and symptoms of an illness exacerbation (self-care management). A generic measure of self-care, the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory, based on the Theory of Self-Care of Chronic Illness, was developed for use in individuals with any number and type of chronic conditions. Objective: The current study investigated the measurement equivalence of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory in individuals from three different cultural groups. We were interested in determining if Italians, Swedes, and Americans interpret the measure in a conceptually similar way. Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 1629 patients, 784 recruited in Italy, 438 in Sweden and 407 in the United States. Self-care (self-care maintenance, self-care monitoring and self-care management) was measured with the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory. A multi-group confirmatory factor analytic approach was used to assess the equivalence of the measures across the three countries. Configural, metric, scalar and strict invariance were tested through a series of nested models where increasingly stringent equality constraints were posited. Results: Participants were mostly males (56.3%), older adults (69.8%) and had at least two chronic conditions. Results indicated that three out of four measurement equivalence levels were partially or totally supported in all three of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory scales. The partial scalar invariance level was reached for self-care maintenance [χ2(50) = 63.495, p = 0.095; RMSEA = 0.022, p = 0.999, 90% CI = 0.000 0.038; CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.977; SRMR = 0.036], self-care monitoring [χ2(22) = 28.770, p = 0.095; RMSEA = 0.024, p = 0.978, 90% CI = 0.000 0.046; CFI = 0.996; TLI = 0.995; SRMR = 0.054], and self-care management [χ2(51) = 91.334, p = 0.001; RMSEA = 0.048, p = 0.576, 90% CI = 0.031 0.063; CFI = 0.949; TLI = 0.937; SRMR = 0.047] scales. Conclusions: These findings suggest that patients in the three countries used an identical cognitive framework or mental model when responding and used the 1–5 Likert response scale in an almost identical way, almost without bias. In spite of sociocultural differences, patients in these countries seem to share the same fundamental view of self-care. The results of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory will be comparable in these countries

Psychometric testing of the revised self-care of heart failure index

Background: Self-care is essential in people with chronic heart failure (HF). The process of self-care was refined in the revised situation specific theory of HF self-care, so we updated the instrument measuring self-care to match the updated theory. The aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the revised 29-item Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI). Methods: A cross-sectional design was used in the primary psychometric analysis using data collected at 5 sites in the United States. A longitudinal design was used at the site collecting test-retest data. We tested SCHFI validity with confirmatory factor analysis and predictive validity in relation to health-related quality of life. We tested SCHFI reliability with Cronbach α, global reliability index, and test-retest reliability. Results: Participants included 631 adults with HF (mean age, 65 ± 14.3 years; 63% male). A series of confirmatory factor analyses supported the factorial structure of the SCHFI with 3 scales: Self-Care Maintenance (with consulting behavior and dietary behavior dimensions), Symptom Perception (with monitoring behavior and symptom recognition dimensions), and Self-Care Management (with recommended behavior and problem-solving behavior dimensions). Reliability estimates were 0.70 or greater for all scales. Predictive validity was supportive with significant correlations between SCHFI scores and health-related quality-of-life scores. Conclusions: Our analysis supports validity and reliability of the SCHFI v7.2. It is freely available to users on the website: www.self-care-measures.com