Gunther Meinlschmidt, Denis Berdajs, Roger Moser-Starck, Alexander Frick, Sebastian Gross, Ulrich Schurr, Friedrich S Eckstein, Sabina Hunziker, Rainer Schaefert
{"title":"主动脉夹层后感知到的社会心理支持需求:横断面调查。","authors":"Gunther Meinlschmidt, Denis Berdajs, Roger Moser-Starck, Alexander Frick, Sebastian Gross, Ulrich Schurr, Friedrich S Eckstein, Sabina Hunziker, 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":"{\"title\":\"Perceived Need for Psychosocial Support After Aortic Dissection: Cross-Sectional Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Gunther Meinlschmidt, Denis Berdajs, Roger Moser-Starck, Alexander Frick, Sebastian Gross, Ulrich Schurr, Friedrich S Eckstein, Sabina Hunziker, 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}","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
摘要
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。
Perceived Need for Psychosocial Support After Aortic Dissection: Cross-Sectional Survey.
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.