Which Heart failure Intervention is most Cost effective in reducing Hospital care (WHICH? II) Trial: A multicentre, randomised trial of standard versus intensified management of metropolitan and regional-dwelling patients with heart failure

Funding Activity

Website
http://grants.uberresearch.com/501100000925/http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1049133/The-WHICH-Trial-of-standard-versus-intensified-heart-failure-care

Funding Status
Closed

Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.

Funded Activity Summary

Chronic heart failure (CHF) management programs are now the gold-standard to cost-effectively care for thousands of Australians hospitalised with CHF each year. We’ve shown that home-based management is most cost-effective in reducing hospital stay in CHF. The Which Intervention is most Cost-effective in reducing Hospital care (WHICH? II) Trial, a multicentre, randomised study, will determine if more intensive care (via home visits and remote care contacts) further improves poor outcomes in CHF.

Funded Activity Details

Start Date: 01-01-2013

End Date: 01-01-2016

Funding Scheme: Project Grants

Funding Amount: $1,891,210.00

Funder: National Health and Medical Research Council

Research Topics

ANZSRC Field of Research (FoR)

Cardiology (incl. Cardiovascular Diseases)

ANZSRC Socio-Economic Objective (SEO)

There are no SEO codes available for this funding activity

Other Keywords

chronic heart failure (CHF) | clinical patient management | clinical trial | health economics | multidisciplinary