Aims: Cognitive impairment occurs often in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and may contribute to sub-optimal self-care. This study aimed to test the impact of cognitive impairment on self-care. Methods and results: In 93 consecutive patients hospitalized with CHF, self-care (Self-Care of Heart Failure Index) was assessed. Multiple regression analysis was used to test a model of variables hypothesized to predict self-care maintenance, management, and confidence. Variables in the model were mild cognitive impairment (MCI; Mini-Mental State Exam and Montreal Cognitive Assessment), depressive symptoms (Cardiac Depression Scale), age, gender, social isolation, education level, new diagnosis, and co-morbid illnesses. Sixty-eight patients (75%) were coded as having MCI and had significantly lower self-care management (η2= 0.07, P < 0.01) and self-confidence scores (η2= 0.05, P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, MCI, co-morbidity index, and NYHA class III or IV explained 20% of the variance in self-care management (P < 0.01); MCI made the largest contribution explaining 9% of the variance. Increasing age and symptoms of depression explained 13% of the variance in self-care confidence scores (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Cognitive impairment, a hidden co-morbidity, may impede patients' ability to make appropriate self-care decisions. Screening for MCI may alert health professionals to those at greater risk of failed self-care.

Purpose of the Review As described in the theory of self-care in chronic illness, there is a wide range of factors that can influence self-care behavior. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the recent heart failure literature on these related factors in order to provide an overview on which factors might be suitable to be considered to make self-care interventions more successful. Recent Findings Recent studies in heart failure patients confirm that factors described in the theory of self-care of chronic illness are relevant for heart failure patients. Summary Experiences and skills, motivation, habits, cultural beliefs and values, functional and cognitive abilities, confidence, and support and access to care are all important to consider when developing or improving interventions for patients with heart failure and their families. Additional personal and contextual factors that might influence self-care need to be explored and included in future studies and theory development efforts.

Background: Cognitive impairments occur frequently in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), resulting in worse health outcomes than expected. These impairments can remain undetected unless specifically screened. There are limited sensitive screening measures available in nursing practice to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Aim: To compare the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) with the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) in screening for MCI in CHF patients. Methods: The MMSE and MoCA were administered to 93 hospitalized CHF patients (70±11 years), without a history of neurocognitive problems. Patients with low MoCA scores (<26) were compared to those with low MMSE scores (<27). Two different parameters were examined between the MoCA and the MMSE: level of MCI agreement (Kappa coefficient) and task errors on assessed cognitive domains (χ² test). Results: Statistically more patients had low MoCA scores compared with low MMSE scores (66 vs. 30, p=0.02). The MoCA classified 38 (41%) patients as cognitively impaired that were not classified by the MMSE. A significantly low level of agreement was found (κ=0.25, p=0.001) between the MMSE and MoCA in identifying patients with scores suggestive of MCI. More task errors were observed on the MoCA cognitive domains compared with the MMSE cognitive domains. In 68% of patients with low cognitive scores, visuospatial task errors were observed on tasks from the MoCA compared with 22% on a similar task of the MMSE. Conclusion: The MoCA, a screening tool for MCI, identified subtle but potentially clinically relevant cognitive dysfunctions with greater frequency than MMSE.

Although medication adherence is commonly measured in electronic datasets using the proportion of days covered (PDC), no standardized approach is used to calculate and report this measure. We conducted a scoping review to understand the approaches taken to calculate and report the PDC for cardiovascular medicines to develop improved guidance for researchers using this measure. After prespecifying methods in a registered protocol, we searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus and grey literature (1 July 2012 to 14 December 2020) for articles containing the terms “proportion of days covered” and “cardiovascular medicine”, or synonyms and subject headings. Of the 523 articles identified, 316 were reviewed in full and 76 were included (93% observational studies; 47% from the USA; 2 grey literature articles). In 45 articles (59%), the PDC was measured from the first dispensing/claim date. Good adherence was defined as 80% PDC in 61 articles, 56% of which contained a rationale for selecting this threshold. The following parameters, important for deriving the PDC, were often not reported/unclear: switching (53%), early refills (45%), in‐hospital supplies (45%), presupply (28%) and survival (7%). Of the 46 articles where dosing information was unavailable, 59% reported how doses were imputed. To improve the transparent and systematic reporting of the PDC, we propose the TEN‐SPIDERS tool, covering the following PDC parameters: Threshold, Eligibility criteria, Numerator and denominator, Survival, Presupply, In‐hospital supplies, Dosing, Early Refills, and Switching. Use of this tool will standardize reporting of the PDC to facilitate reliable comparisons of medication adherence estimates between studies.