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

Q2 Medicine Journal of Participatory Medicine Pub Date : 2020-07-06 DOI:10.2196/15447
Gunther Meinlschmidt, Denis Berdajs, Roger Moser-Starck, Alexander Frick, Sebastian Gross, Ulrich Schurr, Friedrich S Eckstein, Sabina Hunziker, Rainer Schaefert
{"title":"Perceived Need for Psychosocial Support After Aortic Dissection: Cross-Sectional Survey.","authors":"Gunther Meinlschmidt,&nbsp;Denis Berdajs,&nbsp;Roger Moser-Starck,&nbsp;Alexander Frick,&nbsp;Sebastian Gross,&nbsp;Ulrich Schurr,&nbsp;Friedrich S Eckstein,&nbsp;Sabina Hunziker,&nbsp;Rainer Schaefert","doi":"10.2196/15447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"12 3","pages":"e15447"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7434062/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/15447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主动脉夹层后感知到的社会心理支持需求:横断面调查。
背景:主动脉夹层是一种危及生命的疾病,其金标准治疗包括多学科方法。虽然主动脉夹层后的精神困扰很常见,但对主动脉夹层幸存者的循证心理社会干预尚缺乏。目的:本研究的目的是通过调查患者、其亲属和卫生专业人员来确定主动脉夹层幸存者感知到的社会心理需求,以告知此类干预措施的发展。方法:本研究采用横断面调查方法,收集41名参与者(27名主动脉夹层患者、8名主动脉夹层患者亲属和6名卫生专业人员)关于主动脉夹层后心理社会干预的关键主题、干预类型、最佳时机、预期成功以及预期效果和副作用的反馈。结果:主要干预主题为“日常生活变化”(28/ 41.68%,95% CI 54.5% ~ 82.9%)、“焦虑”(25/ 41.61%,95% CI 46.2% ~ 76.2%)、“不确定性”(24/ 41.59%,95% CI 42.9% ~ 73.2%)、“紧张/苦恼”(24/ 41.59%,95% CI 43.9% ~ 73.8%)、“对身体的信任”(21/ 41.51%,95% CI 35.9% ~ 67.5%)。最常见的干预类型是“家庭/亲属治疗”(21/41,51%,95% CI 35%-65.9%)和“焦虑治疗”(21/41,51%,95% CI 35%-67.5%)。最推荐的干预时间是“住院康复期间”(26/41,63%,95% CI 47.6%-77.5%),其次是“住院康复后不久”(20/41,49%,95% CI 32.4%-65%)。超过95%(39/41)的受访者预计主动脉夹层夹层后的社会心理干预会带来好处,68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%)的主动脉夹层幸存者可能会得到改善,5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%)的结果更差,6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%)的人会因为这种干预而产生负面副作用。结论:我们的研究结果强调了对主动脉夹层幸存者进行心理社会干预的必要性,并表明这种干预将是成功的。它们为开发和评估干预措施作为最先进的主动脉夹层管理的一部分提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Value Propositions for Digital Shared Medication Plans to Boost Patient-Health Care Professional Partnerships: Co-Design Study. Assessing Physician and Patient Agreement on Whether Patient Outcomes Captured in Clinical Progress Notes Reflect Treatment Success: Cross-Sectional Study. Using Community Engagement to Create a Telecoaching Intervention to Improve Self-Management in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cystic Fibrosis: Qualitative Study. Developing a Digital Tool to Calculate Protein Quality in Plant-Based Meals of Older Adults: User Engagement Design Approach With End Users. From English to "Englishes": A Process Perspective on Enhancing the Linguistic Responsiveness of Culturally Tailored Cancer Prevention Interventions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1