Feed

Heart failure (HF) is a major public-health burden, and sustained patient education and self-management support are central to long-term care. Digital health technologies provide additional channels for education, monitoring and post-discharge follow-up, but review-level evidence is heterogeneous across intervention models, intensity, feedback mechanisms and outcomes. This study aimed to synthesise review-level evidence on digital health education and digitally supported self-management for adults with HF and to develop practice-oriented evidence statements. We conducted a narrative best-evidence synthesis of review-level evidence, informed by JBI evidence-summary principles and reported according to PRISMA 2020 where applicable. The protocol was registered with the Fudan University Centre for Evidence-Based Nursing (ES20259435). Eight English and Chinese bibliographic databases were searched from inception to 1 December 2025. Eligible evidence included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, systematic metareviews and scoping reviews indexed in the searched databases. Two reviewers independently screened sources, extracted data and appraised methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 or PRISMA-ScR/JBI-informed criteria. Evidence statements were developed using review quality, directness, consistency, feasibility and likely overlap among primary studies; no recommendation grade was assigned. Of 8,698 records identified, 5,331 were screened after de-duplication, 37 full-text reports were assessed and 27 review-level evidence sources were included. Evidence varied substantially in quality, directness and intervention type. The final synthesis generated 27 practice-oriented statements organised into three tiers: essential core components, conditional implementation components, and emerging or outcome-related statements. Review-level evidence suggests that digitally supported education and self-management may complement routine HF care, particularly when linked to structured clinical feedback, clearly assigned responsibility and escalation pathways. However, the evidence statements should be interpreted conditionally because of methodological limitations, indirectness, intervention heterogeneity and likely overlap among reviews.