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
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
e15447Informations 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