Paradox of self-care gender differences among Italian patients with chronic heart failure: Findings from a real-world cross-sectional study

51Citations
Citations of this article
95Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aim The aim of this study was to critically analyse and describe gender differences related to self-care among patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Methods and results A monocentric real-world cohort of 346 patients with chronic HF in follow-up was used for this cross-sectional study. We report data related to the cohort's demographic and clinical characteristics. Selfcare was assessed using the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index before patients' discharge. After bivariate analysis, logistical regression models were used to describe the relationship between gender, self-care behaviours and self-care confidence. While men were found to have more than quadruple the risk of poor self-care than women (OR 4.596; 95% CI 1.075 to 19.650), men were also found to be approximately 60% more likely to have adequate self-care confidence than women (OR 0.412; 95% CI 0.104 to 0.962). Considering that self-care confidence is described as a positive predictor of behaviours, our results suggest a paradox. It is possible that the patient- caregiver relationship mediates the effect of confidence on behaviours. Overall, adequate levels of self-care behaviours are a current issue, ranging 7.6%-18.0%. Conclusion This study sets the stage for future research where elements of the patient-caregiver relationship ought to be considered to inform the planning of appropriate educational interventions. We recommend routinely measuring patients' self-care behaviours to guide their follow-up and as a basis for any changes in their daily life behaviours.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dellafiore, F., Arrigoni, C., Pittella, F., Conte, G., Magon, A., & Caruso, R. (2018). Paradox of self-care gender differences among Italian patients with chronic heart failure: Findings from a real-world cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021966

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free