ReviewPatient preference and adherence2026
Learning Needs in Heart Failure Care Across Patients, Caregivers, and Healthcare Professionals: A Scoping Review of Asian Studies.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collaboration Between Nurses and Patients' Families in Managing Chronic Heart Failure in Older Adults: A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Differential Effects of Telehealth on Psychological Outcomes in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure (HF) is a significant and growing public health challenge in Asia. Effective HF management relies heavily on sustained self-care and education involving not only patients but also family caregivers and healthcare professionals. However, no previous review has systematically mapped the multidimensional learning needs of patients, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals in this region. Purpose: This scoping review aimed to identify, categorize, and synthesize existing evidence on learning needs in HF care from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals across Asian populations. Methods: Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, four databases (PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and Taylor & Francis) and the Google Scholar search engine were searched for Asian studies on August 19, 2025. Sixteen eligible studies published between 2010 and 2025 were included. Data were charted and analysed thematically to identify patterns and variations across three stakeholder perspectives. Results: A total of 16 studies were included in this review. The thematic analysis identified three perspectives of learning needs. From the patients' perspective, the key priorities were disease knowledge, medication management, symptom recognition, lifestyle modification, and psychosocial adaptation. Caregivers' perspective emphasised practical caregiving skills, emotional resilience, and access to guidance and social support. Meanwhile, the healthcare professionals' perspective highlighted patient-centred communication, consistent educational delivery, and interprofessional coordination. Conclusion: This review demonstrates a clear need for an integrated and culturally responsive educational framework that aligns the learning priorities of patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Educational interventions should address both clinical and psychosocial dimensions of HF care. Nurses play a crucial role as key educators within multidisciplinary teams and should be empowered to facilitate coherent, continuous, and patient-centered learning across care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.