Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Combined Digital Platform and Community Health Worker Intervention for Patients With Heart Failure: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a burdensome condition and a leading cause of 30-day hospital readmissions in the United States. Clinical and social factors are key drivers of hospitalization. These 2 strategies, digital platforms and home-based social needs care, have shown preliminary effectiveness in improving adherence to clinical care plans and reducing acute care use in HF. Few studies, if any, have tested combining these 2 strategies in a single intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a pilot randomized controlled trial assessing the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a 30-day digitally-enabled community health worker (CHW) intervention in HF. METHODS: Adults hospitalized with a diagnosis of HF at an academic hospital were randomly assigned to receive digitally-enabled CHW care (intervention; digital platform +CHW) or CHW-enhanced usual care (control; CHW only) for 30 days after hospital discharge. Primary outcomes were feasibility (use of the platform) and acceptability (willingness to use the platform in the future). Secondary outcomes assessed preliminary effectiveness (30-day readmissions, emergency department visits, and missed clinic appointments). RESULTS: A total of 56 participants were randomized (control: n=31; intervention: n=25) and 47 participants (control: n=28; intervention: n=19) completed all trial activities. Intervention participants who completed trial activities wore the digital sensor on 78% of study days with mean use of 11.4 (SD 4.6) hours/day, completed symptom questionnaires on 75% of study days, used the blood pressure monitor 1.1 (SD 0.19) times/day, and used the digital weight scale 1 (SD 0.13) time/day. Of intervention participants, 100% responded very or somewhat true to the statement "If I have access to the [platform] moving forward, I will use it." Some (n=9, 47%) intervention participants indicated they required support to use the digital platform. A total of 19 (100%) intervention participants and 25 (89%) control participants had ≥5 CHW interactions during the 30-day study period. All intervention (n=19, 100%) and control (n=26, 93%) participants who completed trial activities indicated their CHW interactions were "very satisfying." In the full sample (N=56), fewer participants in the intervention group were readmitted 30 days after hospital discharge compared to the control group (n=3, 12% vs n=8, 26%; P=.12). Both arms had similar rates of missed clinic appointments and emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial of a digitally-enabled CHW intervention for HF demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and a clinically relevant reduction in 30-day readmissions among participants who received the intervention. Additional investigation is needed in a larger trial to determine the effect of this intervention on HF home management and clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05130008; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05130008. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/55687.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".