Association between fear of progression and sleep quality in patients with chronic heart failure: A cross‐sectional study

Abstract

Aims This study aimed to measure sleep quality and its possible association with fear of progression (FOP) in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Design A cross‐sectional study. Methods A total of 254 patients with chronic HF were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in China. The sociodemographic and clinical data of participants were collected using a general information questionnaire. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Fear of Progression Questionnaire‐Short Form were used to evaluate sleep quality over 1 month and FOP. Pearson correlation and hierarchical regression were conducted to analyse the relationship between sleep quality and FOP. Results Of all participants, 85.8% had poor sleep quality, with a mean score of 12.3 ± 4.2 (possible score could be 0 to 21). The severity of FOP was positively correlated with poor sleep quality. HF hospitalization in the past year, numbers of HF drugs, monthly income and total score of FOP were strong predictors of decreased sleep quality, accounting for 24.2% of the variance in the sleep quality of these patients. Conclusions Patients with chronic HF generally reported poor sleep quality, which should be highly concerned for medical workers. Alleviating FOP as a therapeutic strategy may improve sleep quality. Impact It is urgent to raise clinical attention that Chinese patients with chronic HF have poor sleep quality, which is not just due to the symptoms of HF itself. FOP is an important psychological factor influencing sleep quality in patients with chronic HF, which has not been explored in China. This study provides a new perspective on targeted interventions for poor sleep quality in chronic HF. Patient and public involvement No patient or public involvement.

Protocol for the development and validation of a clinical measurement tool for fear of disease progression and recurrence in cardiac patients

“…21 Indeed, the few studies that directly investigate FoP in cardiac illness provide preliminary evidence that FoP is present in a large portion of cardiac patients and that this has important implications for both disease prognosis and general wellbeing. [22][23][24][25][26][27] Nonetheless, research directly investigating cardiac FoP is scarce and limited due to the need for a validated tool with which to measure FoP in cardiac patients. In the systematic review of FoP in chronic diseases other than cancer, 9 only three qualitative studies and one quantitative study were identified in cardiac patient populations.…”

“… 21 Indeed, the few studies that directly investigate FoP in cardiac illness provide preliminary evidence that FoP is present in a large portion of cardiac patients and that this has important implications for both disease prognosis and general well‐being. 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 …”

“…In the systematic review of FoP in chronic diseases other than cancer, 9 only three qualitative studies and one quantitative study were identified in cardiac patient populations. While more quantitative studies have been published since this review, all existing studies 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 have used variations of a FoP measure designed for and validated in cancer, diabetes, and rheumatic disease patients. 1 , 28 , 29 These measures have not been validated for use in cardiac patients.…”