Motivational Interviewing improves caregiver self-efficacy in heart failure: a secondary outcome analysis of the MOTIVATE-HF trial

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Center of Excellence for Nursing Scholarship, Rome, Italy. Background Caregiver self-efficacy, which is caregiver confidence in her own abilities to help the patient in performing self-care, directly influences caregiver contribution (CC) to self-care, while acting as a mediator between predictors of CC to self-care and CC to self-care itself. Although caregiver self-efficacy is associated with patient and caregiver outcomes, evidence on interventions aiming to improve this variable, as well as CC to self-care, is scarce. Purpose To evaluate the effect of Motivational Interviewing (MI) on caregiver self-efficacy and CC to self-care in heart failure. Methods Secondary outcome analysis of the MOTIVATE-HF RCT. A total of 235 caregivers and 238 patients completed the study. Participants were recruited from three centres in Italy and randomized into Arm 1 (MI for patients), Arm 2 (MI for patients and caregivers), Arm 3 (standard care). The intervention consisted in one face-to-face MI session followed by three telephone contacts delivered to patients (Arm 1) or to patients and caregivers (Arm 2). Caregiver self-efficacy and CC to self-care were assessed with the Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care of HF Index. Data were collected at baseline, before the intervention, and after 3, 6, 9, 12 months from enrolment. Results Among the three arms, caregivers median age was 55 years, they were mainly female (76%), married (72%), spouses (37%), employed (73.5%), with a high school level or higher education (55%), and living with the patients (60%). Patients median age was 74 years, they were mainly male (58%), retired (76%), in NYHA Class II (61.9%). Over the year of the study, caregiver self-efficacy significantly improved in all arms, and was significantly higher in Arm 2 compared to Arm 3 at 9-month follow-up (difference: 8.36, 95% CI (3.13; 13.59), p = 0.002). At 12-month follow-up, caregiver self-efficacy was still higher in Arm 2 compared to Arm 3, but this difference only approached statistical significance (difference: 6.59, 95% CI (-0.41; 13.60), p = 0.064). The longitudinal mixed linear model on self-efficacy, accounting for time, living with the patient, randomization arm and their interaction, confirmed a significantly higher improvement of caregiver self-efficacy in Arm 2 compared to Arm 3 (β ̂ = 1.39, 95% CI (0.02; 2.75), p = 0.046). CC to self-care significantly improved over time in all Arms, but without significant differences among the three Arms. Conclusion Our results show that MI was effective in improving caregiver self-efficacy, but not CC to self-care. This may indicate that MI was able to improve how well caregivers were supporting patients, as showed by improvements in self-efficacy, but not how much they were doing it, as showed by the lack of improvement in CC to self-care. Further studies need to better understand how caregiver self-efficacy affects CC to self-care, how caregiver self-efficacy can be further improved, and the necessary intensity of MI to improve CC to self-care.