Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Meinlschmidt G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7434062 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Meinlschmidt Gunther G Berdajs Denis D Moser-Starck Roger R Frick Alexander A Gross Sebastian S Schurr Ulrich U Eckstein Friedrich S FS Hunziker Sabina S Schaefert Rainer R

Journal of participatory medicine 20200706 3

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>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 o ...[more]

PMID: 33064108

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine in-centre haemodialysis patients' emotional distress and need for support across UK renal units with varying models of psychosocial service provision.DesignThe study used a cross-sectional survey design. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine patient distress, as captured by the Distress Thermometer, and need for support, across different renal units.SettingSeven renal units across England, Wales and Scotland. The units were purposively selected so that varying workforce models of renal psychosocial services were represented.ParticipantsIn total, 752 patients were on dialysis in the participating centres on the days of data collection. All adult patients, who could understand English, and with capacity (as determined by the nurse in charge), were eligible to participate in the study. The questionnaire was completed by 509 patients, resulting in an overall response rate of 67.7%.Outcome measuresThe prevalence of distress and patient-reported need for support.ResultsThe results showed that 48.9% (95% CI 44.5 to 53.4) of respondents experienced distress. A significant association between distress and models of renal psychosocial service provision was found (χ2(6)=15.05, p=0.019). Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients in units with higher total psychosocial staffing ratios (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.89); p=0.008) and specifically higher social work ratios (OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.74); p=0.001) were less likely to experience distress, even after controlling for demographic variables. In addition, a higher patient-reported unmet need for support was found in units where psychosocial staffing numbers are low or non-existent (χ2(6)=37.80, p<0.001).ConclusionsThe novel findings emphasise a need for increased incorporation of dedicated renal psychosocial staff into the renal care pathway. Importantly, these members of staff should be able to offer support for psychological as well as practical and social care-related issues.

Project description:ObjectiveIn Sweden, an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme was gradually implemented from 2009 to reduce the incidence of rupture and thereby mortality. AAA screening introduces a variety of unintended, but generally unavoidable, harms, e.g. stress and worry. Such psychosocial consequences have previously only been investigated with generic measures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe and compare the psychosocial consequences in men with a screening detected AAA to men with a normal screening result after they participated in the Swedish national AAA-screening programme using a validated psychometric instrument.Material and methodsThis study was a cross-sectional survey. Data were originally collected to validate the COS-AAA and has previously been published in details. The Consequences of Screening in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (COS-AAA) questionnaire was sent to 250 men with a screening detected AAA and 500 with a normal screening result who were randomly selected from a Swedish population-based screening register.ResultsIn total, 158 (63%) men with a screening detected AAA and 275 (55%) men with a normal screening result completed the COS-AAA. We found that men with a screening detected AAA reported negative psychosocial consequences to a greater extent in 10 of 13 COS-AAA Part 1 scales, all statistically significant except three (behaviour, sleep and negative experiences from examination). For COS-AAA Part 2, there was a statistically significant difference between groups in four of five scales.ConclusionsMen diagnosed with a screening detected AAA, reported more negative psychosocial consequences compared to men with a normal result. Screening for abdominal aorta aneurism (AAA) introduces intended benefits and unintended harms. Adequate measures are necessary to determine the balance between them.Key points:This study applied a condition-specific questionnaire with high content validity and adequate psychometric properties to measure psychosocial consequences in men participating in AAA screening.We found that men with a screening detected AAA reported more negative psychosocial consequences than men with a normal aorta size.The risk of negative psychosocial consequences is important to include in the decision making on whether to participate in screening or not.

Project description:BackgroundEffective COVID-19 vaccines have been available since early 2021 yet many Americans refuse or delayed uptake. As of mid-2022, still around 30% of US adults remain unvaccinated against COVID-19. The majority (81%) of these unvaccinated adults say they will "definitely not" be getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake is critical to reducing death and illness from the virus, as well as to inform future vaccine efforts, such as the more recent bivalent (omicron) booster.ObjectiveThis study aimed to expand our understanding of psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We focus on both COVID-19-specific factors, such as COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, as well as more global personality attributes such as dogmatism, reactance, gender roles, political beliefs, and religiosity.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey in mid-2021 of a representative sample of 1376 adults measuring both COVID-19-specific beliefs and attitudes, as well as global personality attributes. COVID-19 vaccination status is reported at 3 levels: vaccinated; unvaccinated-may-get-it; unvaccinated-hard-no.ResultsOur analyses focused on the correlation of COVID-19 vaccination status with 10 psychosocial attributes: COVID-19-specific conspiracy theory beliefs; COVID-19 vaccine misinformation; COVID-19-related Rapture beliefs; general antivaccination beliefs; trait reactance; trait dogmatism; belief in 2020 election fraud; belief in a QAnon conspiracy; health care system distrust; and identification with traditional gender roles. We used a multivariate analysis of covariance to examine mean differences across vaccine status groups for each of the correlates while holding constant the effects of age, gender, race, income, education, political party, and Evangelicalism. Across the 10 psychosocial correlates, several different response scales were used. To allow for comparison of effects across correlates, measures of effect size were computed by converting correlates to z scores and then examining adjusted mean differences in z scores between the groups. We found that all 10 psychosocial variables were significantly associated with vaccination status. After general antivaccination beliefs, COVID-19 misinformation beliefs and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs had the largest effect on vaccine uptake.ConclusionsThe association of these psychosocial factors with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may help explain why vaccine uptake has not shifted much among the unvaccinated-hard-no group since vaccines became available. These findings deepen our understanding of those who remain resistant to getting vaccinated and can guide more effective tailored communications to reach them. Health communication professionals may apply lessons learned from countering related beliefs and personality attributes around issues such as climate change and other forms of vaccine hesitancy. For example, using motivational interviewing strategies that are equipped to handle resistance and provide correct information in a delicate manner that avoids reactance.

Project description:ObjectiveThe primary objective was to explore differences in perceived need for care (PNC), mental health services use (MHSU) and perceived sufficiency of care (PSC) between Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force (RegF) and Reserve Force (ResF) personnel with an objective need for mental health services.DesignData came from the 2013 Canadian Armed Forces Mental Health Survey, a cross-sectional survey of serving personnel (n=72 629). Analyses were among those with an Afghanistan deployment and an identified mental disorder (population n=6160; sampled n=868). Logistic regression compared PNC, MHSU and PSC between RegF and ResF. Covariate-adjusted marginal prevalence difference estimates were computed.Primary outcome measureThe primary outcomes were PNC, MHSU and PSC. Each had three service categories, including an aggregate 'any' of the three: (1) information about problems, treatments or services; (2) medication and (3) counselling.ResultsResF had an 10.5% (95% CI -16.7% to -4.4%) lower perceived need for medication services but PNC differences were not significant for other service categories. MHSU tended to be lower for ResF; 9.1% (95%CI -15.5% to -2.6%) lower for medication, 5.4% (95% CI -11.5% to 0.7%) lower, with marginal significance, for counselling and 11.3% (95% CI -17.3% to -5.2%) lower for the 'any' service category. Additionally, ResF tended to have a lower fully met need for care; 13.4% (95% CI -22.1% to -4.6%) lower for information, 15.3% (95% CI -22.9% to -7.6%) lower for counselling and 14.6% (95% CI -22.4% to -6.8%) lower for the 'any' service category.ConclusionsOur findings suggest MHSU and PSC differences between Canadian RegF and ResF personnel that are not fully accounted for by PNC differences. Deficits in ResF members' perceptions of the sufficiency of information services and counselling services suggest perceived, or experienced, barriers to care beyond any PNC barriers. Additional research assessing barriers to mental healthcare is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundMost patients use the internet to search for health information. While there is a vast repository of searchable information online, much of the content is unregulated and therefore potentially incorrect, conflicting, or confusing. Abortion information online is particularly prone to being inaccurate as antichoice websites publish purposefully misleading information in formats that appear as neutral resources. To understand how antichoice websites appear neutral, we need to understand the specific website features of antichoice websites that impart an impression of trustworthiness.ObjectiveWe sought to identify the characteristics of false or misleading abortion websites that make these websites appear trustworthy to the public.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. We used validated questionnaires to ask participants to rate 11 antichoice websites and one neutral website identified by experts, focusing on website content, creators, and design. We collected sociodemographic data and participant views on abortion. We used a composite measure of "mean overall trust" as our primary outcome. Using correlation matrices, we determined which website characteristics were most associated with mean overall trust. Finally, we used linear regression to identify participant characteristics associated with overall trust.ResultsOur analytic sample included 498 participants aged from 22 to 70 years, and 50.1% (247/493) identified as female. Across 11 antichoice websites, creator confidence ("I believe that the creators of this website are honest and trustworthy") had the highest correlation coefficient (strongest relationship) with mean overall trust (coefficient=0.70). Professional appearance (coefficient=0.59), look and feel (coefficient=0.59), perception that the information is created by experts (coefficient=0.59), association with a trustworthy organization (coefficient=0.58), valued features and functionalities (coefficient=0.54), and interactive capabilities (coefficient=0.52) all demonstrated strong relationships with mean overall trust. At the individual level, prochoice leaning was associated with higher overall trust of the neutral website (B=-0.43, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.01) and lower mean overall trust of the antichoice websites (B=0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99).ConclusionsThe mean overall trust of antichoice websites is most associated with design characteristics and perceived trustworthiness of website creators. Those who believe that access to abortion should be limited are more likely to have higher mean overall trust for antichoice websites.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets