Taking Care of Us: A Dyadic Intervention for Heart Failure Couples

Physical quality of life score from the 10-item PROMIS Global Health Short Form. 4 items recoded to 1-5 scale for potential range of 1-20. Higher scores indicate better physical quality of life.

Mental quality of life score from the 10-item PROMIS Global Health Short Form. 4 items recoded to 1-5 scale for potential range of 1-20. Higher scores indicate better mental quality of life.

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression CESD 20-item measure. Items are on a 0-3 scale with potential range of 0-60 with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms.

The 16-item Multidimensional Caregiver Strain Index measures physical, social, interpersonal strain and time constraints and demands related to providing care on a 1-5 scale. Potential range of scores is 16-80 with higher scores indicating greater strain.

Total quality of life score assessed by the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Items are converted to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating better heart failure related quality of life.

Patient dyspnea scores assessed by the 6-item Heart Failure Somatic Perception Scale. Items ask about how much the person was bothered by dyspnea during the last week on a 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely bothersome) scale for a potential range of 0-30. Higher scores indicate greater dyspnea. It was not possible to examine changes in incongruence within couples due to small sample so between-group differences with patients and spouses (reporting their perception of patient's dyspnea) were calculated.

Pain interference was assessed using the six-item PROMIS pain interference scale with items ranging from 1-5 for a potential range of 6-30. Higher scores indicate more pain interference. It was not possible to examine changes in incongruence within couples due to small sample so between-group differences with patients and spouses (reporting their perception of patient's pain interference) were calculated.

Fatigue was assessed using the eight-item PROMIS fatigue scale with items on a 1-5 scale for a potential range of 8-40. Higher scored indicate more fatigue. It was not possible to examine changes in incongruence within couples due to small sample so between-group differences with patients and spouses (reporting their perception of patient's fatigue) were calculated.

Collaborative symptom management was assessed using the six-item Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management measure with items reworded to ask how much couples worked together to prevent symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain, emotional distress) from interfering with what the person with heart failure wanted to do or to reduce the need to see a provider on a 1 (never) to 10 (always) scale. Average summary scores had the potential to range from 1-10 with higher scores indicating greater collaborative management.

Confidence was measured using the 6-item Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management measure to assess confidence to manage six aspects of the illness (e.g., fatigue, emotional distress) on a 1 (no confidence) to 10 (a great deal of confidence) scale. Summary scores were calculated by average the six items for a potential range of 1-10.Higher scores indicate greater confidence.

Communication within the couple was assessed using both scales from the Dyadic Coping measure. Active engagement has five items that ask about how much one's partner engages in open communication and support on a 1-5 scale for a possible range of 5-25. Higher scores indicate one's partner has a higher level of active engagement.

Communication within the couple was assessed using both scales from the Dyadic Coping measure. Protective buffering has six items that ask about how much one's partner engages in hiding concerns and denying worries on a 1-5 scale for a possible range of 6-30. Higher scores indicate one's partner has a higher level of protective buffering.

Satisfaction with the assigned program was assessed with a Likert item adapted from other intervention work about the benefits and drawbacks of the program. Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with the overall program on a 1 to 4 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.