Effect of Psychosocial Interventions on Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHIP) usually experience poor quality of life (QoL). Psychosocial interventions tend to affect QoL in CHIP. The aim of this study was to explore: 1) the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions on patients' QoL; 2) the magnitude of this effect; and 3) factors that appear to moderate the reported effect on QoL. Methods and Results: Meta-analysis of the data of 1,074 intervention patients and 1,106 control patients from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported QoL measures in treatment and control groups before and after a psychosocial intervention. Subgroup analyses were conducted between: 1) face-to-face versus telephone interventions; 2) interventions that included only patients versus those that included patients and their caregivers; and 3) interventions conducted by a physician and a nurse only, versus those conducted by a multidisciplinary team. Psychosocial interventions improved QoL of CHF patients (standardized mean difference 0.46, confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.72; P < .001). Face-to-face interventions showed greater QoL improvement compared with telephone interventions (chi(2) = 5.73; df = 1; P < .02). Interventions that included caregivers did not appear to be significantly more effective (chi(2) = 1.12; df = 1; P > .29). A trend was found for multidisciplinary team approaches being more effective compared with nonmultidisciplinary approaches (chi(2) = 1.96; df = 1; P = .16). Conclusions: A significant overall QoL improvement emerged after conducting psychosocial interventions with CHF patients. Interventions based on a face-to-face approach showed greater benefit for patients' QoL compared with telephone-based approaches. No significant advantage was found for interventions conducted by a multidisciplinary team compared with a physician and nurse approach, or for psychosocial interventions which included patients' caregivers compared with patient-only approaches. (J Cardiac Fail 2013;19:125-134)