Perceived Need for Psychosocial Support After Aortic Dissection: Cross-Sectional Survey.

aortic dissection patient involvement psychosocial support psychosomatic psychotherapy treatment need

Journal

Journal of participatory medicine
ISSN: 2152-7202
Titre abrégé: J Particip Med
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101539422

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Jul 2020
Historique:
received: 15 07 2019
accepted: 28 02 2020
revised: 20 01 2020
entrez: 16 10 2020
pubmed: 17 10 2020
medline: 17 10 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking. The aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions. This study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection. The principal intervention topics were "changes in everyday life" (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), "anxiety" (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), "uncertainty" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), "tension/distress" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and "trust in the body" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were "family/relative therapy" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and "anxiety treatment" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was "during inpatient rehabilitation" (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by "shortly after inpatient rehabilitation" (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions. Our findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions.
METHODS METHODS
This study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection.
RESULTS RESULTS
The principal intervention topics were "changes in everyday life" (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), "anxiety" (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), "uncertainty" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), "tension/distress" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and "trust in the body" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were "family/relative therapy" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and "anxiety treatment" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was "during inpatient rehabilitation" (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by "shortly after inpatient rehabilitation" (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33064108
pii: v12i3e15447
doi: 10.2196/15447
pmc: PMC7434062
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e15447

Informations de copyright

©Gunther Meinlschmidt, Denis Berdajs, Roger Moser-Starck, Alexander Frick, Sebastian Gross, Ulrich Schurr, Friedrich S Eckstein, Sabina Hunziker, Rainer Schaefert. Originally published in Journal of Participatory Medicine (http://jopm.jmir.org), 06.07.2020.

Références

Lancet. 2015 Feb 28;385(9970):800-11
pubmed: 25662791
Swiss Med Wkly. 2017 Sep 05;147:w14489
pubmed: 28871571
Heart. 2014 Oct;100(19):1491-7
pubmed: 25092877
Clin Cardiol. 2015 Nov;38(11):652-9
pubmed: 26769699
Eur Heart J. 2018 Mar 1;39(9):739-749d
pubmed: 29106452
BMJ. 2011 Jan 11;344:d8290
pubmed: 22236596
Clin Cardiol. 2015 Nov;38(11):647-51
pubmed: 26769698
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1779-90
pubmed: 26727916
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Dec;60(8):496-500
pubmed: 22399311
Circulation. 2004 Sep 14;110(11 Suppl 1):II250-5
pubmed: 15364871
BMJ. 2017 Aug 2;358:j3453
pubmed: 28768629
Circulation. 2013 May 21;127(20):2031-7
pubmed: 23599348
BMJ. 2016 Sep 14;354:i3883
pubmed: 27628427
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Aug 25;2:16071
pubmed: 27560366
Circulation. 2016 Oct 4;134(14):1013-1024
pubmed: 27587434
Wien Med Wochenschr. 2018 Mar;168(3-4):67-75
pubmed: 28616666
Tex Heart Inst J. 2009;36(2):104-10
pubmed: 19436802

Auteurs

Gunther Meinlschmidt (G)

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Division of Clinical Psychology and Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Division of Clinical Psychology and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, International Psychoanalytic University, Berlin, Germany.

Denis Berdajs (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Roger Moser-Starck (R)

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Alexander Frick (A)

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Sebastian Gross (S)

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Ulrich Schurr (U)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Friedrich S Eckstein (FS)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Sabina Hunziker (S)

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Division of Medical Communication, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Rainer Schaefert (R)

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH