How Values Are Discussed, Reflected Upon, and Acted On by Patients and Family Caregivers in the Context of Heart Failure: A Scoping Review.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231165958
Avery C Bechthold, Christopher E Knoepke, Deborah B Ejem, Colleen K McIlvennan, Rachel D Wells, Daniel D Matlock, Marie A Bakitas, J Nicholas Dionne-Odom
{"title":"How Values Are Discussed, Reflected Upon, and Acted On by Patients and Family Caregivers in the Context of Heart Failure: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Avery C Bechthold,&nbsp;Christopher E Knoepke,&nbsp;Deborah B Ejem,&nbsp;Colleen K McIlvennan,&nbsp;Rachel D Wells,&nbsp;Daniel D Matlock,&nbsp;Marie A Bakitas,&nbsp;J Nicholas Dionne-Odom","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231165958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Values are critical to how individuals make decisions and cope, yet the values of heart failure (HF) patients and their family caregivers (FCGs) remain understudied. We sought to report the state of the science on how values are discussed, reflected upon, and acted on by patients with HF, their FCGs, or both related to health-related decision making and coping.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A scoping review was conducted of empirical studies using the following keywords: \"heart failure,\" \"values,\" \"decision-making,\" and \"coping.\" PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2022 in English. Included articles reported values as a key finding (outcome/theme) in their abstract.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 448 articles screened for eligibility, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve articles reported findings addressing patient values, 3 addressed patient and FCG values, and 1 addressed FCG values. Values were reported to influence patient self-care behaviors and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation decisions, although their prioritization varied across time and contexts. When prioritized values conflicted with recommended self-care activities, some patients modified their approach to achieving the value. Others modified or abandoned tasks in favor of the value and accompanying goals. Low motivation and alignment between unhealthy behaviors and values often led to nonadherent decisions. Five of 8 articles focusing on cardiac devices reported patient survival as the most prioritized value during implantation decisions. FCG values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values. Patients leveraged several coping strategies, although the processes through which values affected coping was not described.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prioritized values influenced HF-related decisions, including self-care and LVAD implantation. While several articles reported on coping and values, none described processes through which values affect coping, which highlights a research gap.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Family caregiver values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values, highlighting a gap in the literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 4","pages":"508-520"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231165958","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: Values are critical to how individuals make decisions and cope, yet the values of heart failure (HF) patients and their family caregivers (FCGs) remain understudied. We sought to report the state of the science on how values are discussed, reflected upon, and acted on by patients with HF, their FCGs, or both related to health-related decision making and coping.

Method: A scoping review was conducted of empirical studies using the following keywords: "heart failure," "values," "decision-making," and "coping." PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2022 in English. Included articles reported values as a key finding (outcome/theme) in their abstract.

Results: Of 448 articles screened for eligibility, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve articles reported findings addressing patient values, 3 addressed patient and FCG values, and 1 addressed FCG values. Values were reported to influence patient self-care behaviors and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation decisions, although their prioritization varied across time and contexts. When prioritized values conflicted with recommended self-care activities, some patients modified their approach to achieving the value. Others modified or abandoned tasks in favor of the value and accompanying goals. Low motivation and alignment between unhealthy behaviors and values often led to nonadherent decisions. Five of 8 articles focusing on cardiac devices reported patient survival as the most prioritized value during implantation decisions. FCG values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values. Patients leveraged several coping strategies, although the processes through which values affected coping was not described.

Conclusions: Prioritized values influenced HF-related decisions, including self-care and LVAD implantation. While several articles reported on coping and values, none described processes through which values affect coping, which highlights a research gap.

Highlights: Family caregiver values were rarely reported or evaluated separately from patient values, highlighting a gap in the literature.

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
在心力衰竭的背景下,患者和家庭照顾者如何讨论、反思和采取行动的价值观:范围审查。
目的:价值观对个体如何做出决定和应对至关重要,但心力衰竭(HF)患者及其家庭照顾者(FCGs)的价值观仍未得到充分研究。我们试图报告HF患者及其FCGs如何讨论、反思和采取与健康相关的决策和应对相关的价值观的科学现状。方法:采用“心力衰竭”、“价值观”、“决策”、“应对”等关键词对实证研究进行范围综述。PubMed, PsycINFO和Scopus从成立到2022年6月的英文检索。纳入的文章在其摘要中将价值报告为关键发现(结果/主题)。结果:在筛选的448篇文章中,有16篇符合纳入标准。12篇文章报道了患者值,3篇报道了患者和FCG值,1篇报道了FCG值。据报道,价值观会影响患者的自我保健行为和左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入决策,尽管它们的优先级随时间和环境而变化。当优先价值与推荐的自我保健活动相冲突时,一些患者修改了他们实现价值的方法。其他人修改或放弃任务,以支持价值和伴随的目标。不健康的行为和价值观之间缺乏动力和一致性往往会导致不坚持的决定。8篇关于心脏装置的文章中有5篇报道患者的生存是植入决定中最优先考虑的价值。FCG值很少与患者值分开报道或评估。患者利用了几种应对策略,尽管没有描述价值观影响应对的过程。结论:优先价值影响hf相关决策,包括自我保健和LVAD植入。虽然有几篇文章报道了应对和价值观,但没有一篇文章描述了价值观影响应对的过程,这凸显了研究的空白。亮点:家庭照顾者的价值很少与患者的价值分开报道或评估,突出了文献中的差距。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
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