Help seeking in a support group for recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and their support persons

Dickerson, Suzanne S.; Posluszny, Marylou; Kennedy, Mary C.

doi:10.1016/s0147-9563(00)90003-7

Cited by 35 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results regarding improved patient physical function and slight reductions in partner physical function are consistent with the partner study conducted with AVID trial data, where partner physical functioning appeared to decline across the year (Jenkins et al, 2007). Partners of cardiac patients tend to associate declines in their own health to stress, sleep disturbances, fatigue and loss of appetite (Blair et al, 2014; Dickerson et al, 2000; Kettunen et al, 1999; O’Farrell et al, 2000). These symptoms are consonant with patterns reported by intimate partners in this research, including feeling run down, experiencing headaches, and being unable to maintain usual weight.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of patient and partner quality of life and health outcomes in the first year after an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recovery following an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) impacts both the patient and partner, often in divergent ways. Patients may have had a cardiac arrest or cardiac arrhythmias, whereas partners may have to perform CPR and manage the ongoing challenges of heart disease therapy. Currently, support for post-ICD care focuses primarily on restoring patient functioning with few interventions available to partners who serve as primary support. This descriptive study examined and compared patterns of change for both patients and partners during the first year post-ICD implantation. For this longitudinal study, the sample included 42 of 55 (76.4 %) patient–partner dyads who participated in the ‘usual care’ group of a larger intervention RCT with patients following ICD implant for secondary prevention of cardiac arrest. Measures taken at across five time points (at hospital discharge and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months follow up) tracked physical function (SF-12 PCS, symptoms); psychological adjustment (SF-12 MCS; State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; CES-D); relationship impact (Family Functioning, DOII; Mutuality and Interpersonal Sensitivity, MIS); and healthcare utilization (ED visits, outpatient visits, hospitalizations). Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to characterize and compare outcome trends for patients and partners across the first 12 months of recovery. Patients were 66.5 ± 11.3 (mean + SD) years old, predominately Caucasian male (91 %), with Charlson co-morbidities of 4.4 ± 2.4. Partners were 62.5 ± 11.1 years old, predominantly female (91 %) with Charlson co-morbidities of 2.9 ± 3.0. Patient versus partner differences were observed in the pattern of physical health (F = 10.8, p <0.0001); patient physical health improved while partner health showed few changes. For partners compared to patients, anxiety, depression, and illness demands on family functioning tended to be higher. Patient mutuality was stable, while partner mutuality increased steadily (F = 2.5, p = 0.05). Patient sensitivity was highest at discharge and declined; partner sensitivity increased (F = 10.2, p < 0.0001) across the 12-month recovery. Outpatient visits for patients versus partners differed (F = 5.0, p = 0.008) due most likely to the number of required patient ICD visits. Total hospitalizations and ED visits were higher for patients versus partners, but not significantly. The findings highlight the potential reciprocal influences of patient and partner responses to the ICD experience on health outcomes. Warranted are new, sound and feasible strategies to counterbalance partner needs while simultaneously optimizing patient recovery outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of patient and partner quality of life and health outcomes in the first year after an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that study, six themes were identified: hearing and telling stories, triggers that encourage seeking help from the group, group camaraderie as therapeutic friendship, importance of a facilitator and support person's similar view. Both of these studies provide direction for further research in this area 16,17 . Gray and Fitch suggested that further research into the benefits of support groups generally should identify the most favourable structure of the group, as well as the qualifications of the person leading the group 18 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons for attending and not attending a support group for recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and their carers

Williams

Young

Nikoletti

et al. 2004

Int J of Nursing Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is evidence to suggest that people who have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator and their caregivers experience psychological distress. This qualitative descriptive study explored the experiences, concerns and needs of recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and their caregivers who attended or did not attend a support group organized by a public hospital located in Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Eleven recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and their caregivers participated in this study. Among those who attended the support group, four major themes were identified: providing information, connecting with others, helping others and attendance. Explanations for non-attendance included difficulties attending because of the location, not wanting to be reminded about the implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and a perception, among younger recipients, that the support group was comprised of mainly older recipients with whom they had little in common.

show abstract

“…These include: role‐playing potential life situations using anticipatory guidance, adapted to individual patient and family members; counselling; pre‐discharge teaching session; assessment of anxiety and fear; facilitating access to other patients with an ICD; and admission to cardiac rehabilitation programmes and cognitive behavioural therapy (Simons et al ., 1992; Dunbar et al ., 1993, 1996; Burke, 1996; James, 1997; McHugh Schuster et al ., 1998; Sotile and Sears, 1999; James et al ., 2000; Kohn et al ., 2000; Ocampo, 2000; White, 2000,2002; Lewin et al ., 2001). Providing patients and their relatives time to talk and ‘tell their stories’ is also viewed as therapeutic (Dunbar et al ., 1993; Sotile and Sears, 1999; Dickerson et al ., 2000). Although some authors report the involvement of a psychologist to deliver or supervise specific interventions (Sotile and Sears, 1999; Kohn et al ., 2000), the majority appear to assume that nurses will deliver these aspects of care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can nurses in cardiology areas prepare patients for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implant and life at home?

Tagney¹

2004

Nursing in Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored nurses' confidence and competence in preparing patients for having an implantable cardioverter defibrillator implanted and for life at home after discharge. Whilst research has identified various physical and psychosocial effects to patients and their partners associated with device implant and subsequent lifestyle adjustments, no research has explored nurses' knowledge of the device or these effects. A survey was designed using a purposive sample of 152 nurses from cardiology areas in four large teaching hospitals and a 28-point postal questionnaire to explore knowledge of the device and its impact. Most subjects were not confident in their abilities to prepare patients for implant or life at home after implant. Knowledge of the device and its effects appeared poorly understood by all nurses, irrespective of additional qualifications, length of time since qualifying or area of work. Many participants were aware of the poor knowledge level of nurses and identified it as a weakness in current care practices. Lack of understanding may impair preparation of patients for implantation of or for living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and feasible strategies to change this situation will require careful consideration and further investment.

show abstract

Help seeking in a support group for recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and their support persons

Cited by 35 publications

References 10 publications

Comparison of patient and partner quality of life and health outcomes in the first year after an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)

Comparison of patient and partner quality of life and health outcomes in the first year after an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)

Reasons for attending and not attending a support group for recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and their carers

Can nurses in cardiology areas prepare patients for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implant and life at home?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About