Patterns of Heart Failure Dyadic Illness Management: The Important Role of Gender.
Journal
The Journal of cardiovascular nursing
ISSN: 1550-5049
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Nurs
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703516
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
5
6
2020
medline:
6
10
2021
entrez:
5
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The ways in which patients with heart failure (HF) and their care partners work together to manage HF are often overlooked. The aim of this study was to identify and compare different patterns of HF dyadic illness management. This was a secondary analysis of data on HF dyads. Heart failure management was measured using patient and care partner versions of the Self-Care of HF Index and European HF Self-care Behavior Scale. Latent class modeling was used to identify patterns of HF dyadic management. The mean age of the 62 patients and their care partners was 59.7 ± 11.8 and 58.1 ± 11.9 years, respectively. A majority of patients (71.0%) had class III/IV HF, and a majority of the couples (95.2%) were married. Two distinct dyadic patterns were observed, 1 collaborative management type (n = 42, 67.7%) and 1 autonomous management type (n = 20, 32.3%). Dyads in the autonomous pattern were mostly female patients with male care partners; patients in this pattern also were more anxious and depressed, and reported worse relationship quality compared with collaborative dyads. There is an engendered spectrum of collaboration in how HF patient-care partner dyads work together to manage HF that needs to be considered in clinical care and research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ways in which patients with heart failure (HF) and their care partners work together to manage HF are often overlooked.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to identify and compare different patterns of HF dyadic illness management.
METHODS
This was a secondary analysis of data on HF dyads. Heart failure management was measured using patient and care partner versions of the Self-Care of HF Index and European HF Self-care Behavior Scale. Latent class modeling was used to identify patterns of HF dyadic management.
RESULTS
The mean age of the 62 patients and their care partners was 59.7 ± 11.8 and 58.1 ± 11.9 years, respectively. A majority of patients (71.0%) had class III/IV HF, and a majority of the couples (95.2%) were married. Two distinct dyadic patterns were observed, 1 collaborative management type (n = 42, 67.7%) and 1 autonomous management type (n = 20, 32.3%). Dyads in the autonomous pattern were mostly female patients with male care partners; patients in this pattern also were more anxious and depressed, and reported worse relationship quality compared with collaborative dyads.
CONCLUSION
There is an engendered spectrum of collaboration in how HF patient-care partner dyads work together to manage HF that needs to be considered in clinical care and research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32496366
doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000695
pii: 00005082-202009000-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
416-422Références
Riegel B, Moser DK, Anker SD, et al. State of the science: promoting self-care in persons with heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009;120(12):1141–1163.
Buck HG, Harkness K, Wion R, et al. Caregivers' contributions to heart failure self-care: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2015;14(1):79–89.
Buck HG, Zambroski CH, Hupcey JE. Assessing the response of patient and spousal/partner caregivers to a new instrument measuring dyadic heart failure care types. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013;12(2):209–213.
Lyons KS, Lee CS. The theory of dyadic illness management. J Fam Nurs. 2018;24:8–28.
Retrum JH, Nowels CT, Bekelman DB. Patient and caregiver congruence: the importance of dyads in heart failure care. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2013;28:129–136.
Buck HG, Kitko L, Hupcey JE. Dyadic heart failure care types: qualitative evidence for a novel typology. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013;28:E37–E46.
Lee CS, Vellone E, Lyons KS, et al. Patterns and predictors of patient and caregiver engagement in heart failure care: a multi-level dyadic study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(2):588–597.
Lee CS, Mudd JO, Auld J, et al. Patterns, relevance and predictors of heart failure dyadic symptom appraisal. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2017;16:595–604.
Bidwell JT, Vellone E, Lyons KS, et al. Determinants of heart failure self-care maintenance and management in patients and caregivers: a dyadic analysis. Res Nurs Health. 2015;38(5):392–402.
Lyons KS, Hiatt SO, Gelow JM, et al. Depressive symptoms in couples living with heart failure: the role of congruent engagement in heart failure management. Aging Ment Health. 2018;22(12):1585–1591.
Lyons KS, Sadowski T, Lee CS. The role of concealment and relationship quality on patient hospitalizations, care strain and depressive symptoms in heart failure dyads. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020;19(2):118–124.
Riegel B, Lee CS, Dickson VV, Carlson B. An update on the self-care of heart failure index. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;24:485–497.
Jaarsma T, Arestedt KF, Martensson J, Dracup K, Stromberg A. The European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour scale revised into a nine-item scale (EHFScB-9): a reliable and valid international instrument. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:99–105.
Vellone E, Riegel B, Cocchieri A, et al. Validity and reliability of the caregiver contribution to self-care of heart failure index. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013;28(3):245–255.
Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N. The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med. 1983;13:595–605.
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–613.
Druley JA, Stephens MAP, Coyne JC. Emotional and physical intimacy in coping with lupus: women's dilemmas of disclosure and approach. Health Psychol. 1997;16:506–514.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.
Archbold PG, Stewart BJ, Greenlick MR, Harvath T. Mutuality and preparedness as predictors of caregiver role strain. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13:375–384.
Dellafiore F, Buck HG, Pucciarelli G, et al. Psychometric characteristics of the mutuality scale in heart failure patients and caregivers. Heart Lung. 2018;47:553–561.
Stull DE. The multidimensional caregiver index (MCSI): its measurement and structure. J Clin Geropsychol. 1996;2:175–196.
Sayer AG, Klute MM. Analyzing couples and families: multilevel methods. In: Bengtson VL, Acock AC, Allen KR, Dilworth-Anderson P, Klein DM, eds. Sourcebook of Family Theory & Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2005:289–313.
Ram N, Grimm KJ. Methods and measures: growth mixture modeling: a method for identifying differences in longitudinal change among unobserved groups. Int J Behav Dev. 2009;33:565–576.
Digiacomo M, Davidson PM, Zecchin R, Lamb K, Daly J. Caring for others, but not themselves: implications for health care interventions in women with cardiovascular disease. Nurs Res Pract. 2011;2011:376020.
Thomas JR, Clark AM. Women with heart failure are at high psychosocial risk: a systematic review of how sex and gender influence heart failure self-care. Cardiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:918973.
Monin JK, Manigault A, Levy BR, et al. Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage. Health Psychol. 2019;38:936–947.
Zahlis EH, Lewis FM. Coming to grips with breast cancer: the spouse's experience with his wife's first six months. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2010;28:79–97.
Cross SE, Hardin EE, Gercek-Swing B. The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011;15(2):142–179.
Beam CR, Marcus K, Turkheimer E, Emery RE. Gender differences in the structure of marital quality. Behav Genet. 2018;48:209–223.
Northouse LL. Helping patients and their family caregivers cope with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012;39:500–506.