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. 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. Scoping review DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases - PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL - were searched from January 2008 through January 2019. 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. 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. 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).

The effectiveness of heart failure (HF) self-management interventions varies within patients suggesting that one size does not fit all. It is expected that effectiveness can be optimized when interventions are tailored to individual patients. The aim of this review was to synthesize the literature on current use of tailoring in self-management interventions and patient characteristics associated with self-management capacity and success of interventions, as building blocks for tailoring. Within available trials, the degree to which interventions are explicitly tailored is marginal and often limited to content. We found that certain patient characteristics that are associated with poor self-management capacity do not influence effectiveness of a given intervention (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, disease severity, number of comorbidities) and that other characteristics (low: income, literacy, education, baseline self-management capacity) in fact are indicators of patients with a high likelihood for success. Increased scientific efforts are needed to continue unraveling success of self-management interventions and to validate the modifying impact of currently known patient characteristics.

Interviewing participants on sensitive topics is challenging and requires carefully planned and executed strategies throughout the research process. Sensitive topics have the potential to cause distress to participants or researchers. In this methods paper, strategies for conducting interviews on sensitive topics are described, including choosing the appropriate interview approach, creating a safe and comfortable environment, building rapport, utilizing sensitive and open questioning, reflexivity of the researcher, and awareness of the potential therapeutic effect of the interviews on participants. The strategies are illustrated with experiences from research on sensitive topics.

Background: Theories can provide a foundation to explain behavior, investigate relationships, and to predict the effect of interventions. The aim of the study was to clarify the use of theories in studies testing interventions to promote self-care. Method: A scoping review. PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched from January 2008 through January 2019. Nine common chronic conditions were included. We included studies testing a self-care intervention if they used a randomized controlled trial design. The study was registered in PROSPERO (#123719). Results: The search retrieved 9309 potential studies, of which 233 were included in the review. In total, 76 (33%) of the 233 studies used a theory and 24 different theories were used. Bandura’s social cognitive theory was the most frequently used (48 studies), but 22 other theories were used in a minority of studies. Most studies used theories minimally to justify or provide a rationale for the study, to develop the intervention, to select outcomes, and/or to explain the results. Only eight studies fully used a theory in the rationale, intervention development, choice of outcomes, and discussion. Conclusion: The use of theories to guide self-care research is limited, which may pose a barrier in accumulating knowledge underlying self-care interventions.

Self-management interventions are considered effective in patients with chronic disease, but trials have shown inconsistent results, and it is unknown which patients benefit most. Adequate self-management requires behaviour change in both patients and health care providers. Therefore, the Activate intervention was developed with a focus on behaviour change in both patients and nurses. The intervention aims for change in a single self-management behaviour, namely physical activity, in primary care patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Activate intervention. A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to compare the Activate intervention with care as usual at 31 general practices in the Netherlands. Approximately 279 patients at risk for cardiovascular disease will participate. The Activate intervention is developed using the Behaviour Change Wheel and consists of 4 nurse-led consultations in a 3-month period, integrating 17 behaviour change techniques. The Behaviour Change Wheel was also applied to analyse what behaviour change is needed in nurses to deliver the intervention adequately. This resulted in 1-day training and coaching sessions (including 21 behaviour change techniques). The primary outcome is physical activity, measured as the number of minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity using an accelerometer. Potential effect modifiers are age, body mass index, level of education, social support, depression, patient-provider relationship and baseline number of minutes of physical activity. Data will be collected at baseline and at 3 months and 6 months of follow-up. A process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the training of nurses, treatment fidelity, and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation as well as to assess participants’ satisfaction. To increase physical activity in patients and to support nurses in delivering the intervention, behaviour change techniques are applied to change behaviours of the patients and nurses. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention, exploration of which patients benefit most, and evaluation of our theory-based training for primary care nurses will enhance understanding of what works and for whom, which is essential for further implementation of self-management in clinical practice. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02725203 . Registered on 25 March 2016.