Dataset Information

Feasibility and Efficacy of a Resiliency Intervention for the Prevention of Chronic Emotional Distress Among Survivor-Caregiver Dyads Admitted to the Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based interventions to prevent chronic emotional distress (ie, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress [PTS]) in critical care survivors and their informal caregivers.

Objective

To determine the feasibility and preliminary effect of the novel dyadic resiliency intervention Recovering Together (RT) on reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTS among hospitalized patients and their informal caregivers.

Design, setting, and participants

This single-blind, pilot randomized clinical trial of RT vs an educational control was conducted among 58 dyads in which either the survivor or caregiver endorsed clinically significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTS. The study was conducted in the neuroscience intensive care unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. Data were collected from September 2019 to March 2020.

Interventions

Both RT and control programs had 6 sessions (2 at bedside and 4 via live video after discharge), and both survivor and caregiver participated together.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and intervention delivery, credibility, and satisfaction. The secondary outcomes included depression and anxiety (measured by the Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale), PTS (measured by the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version), and intervention targets (ie, mindfulness, measured by the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised; coping, measured by the Measure of Current Status-Part A; and dyadic interpersonal interactions, measured by the Dyadic Relationship Scale). Main outcomes and targets were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks.

Results

The 58 dyads were randomized to RT (29 dyads [50.0%]; survivors: mean [SD] age, 49.3 [16.7] years; 9 [31.0%] women; caregivers: mean [SD] age, 52.4 [14.3] years; 22 [75.9%] women) or control (29 dyads [50.0%]; survivors: mean [SD] age, 50.3 [16.4] years; 12 [41.3%] women; caregivers, mean [SD] age, 52.1 [14.9], 17 [58.6%] women). Feasibility (recruitment [76%], randomization [100%], and data collection [83%-100%]), adherence (86%), fidelity (100%; κ = 0.98), satisfaction (RT: 57 of 58 [98%] with scores >6; control: 58 of 58 [100%] with scores >6), credibility (RT: 47 of 58 [81%] with scores >6; control: 46 of 58 [80%] with scores >6), and expectancy (RT: 49 of 58 [85%] with scores >13.5; 51 of 58 [87%] with scores >13.5) exceeded benchmarks set a priori. Participation in RT was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement between baseline and postintervention in symptoms of depression (among survivors: -4.0 vs -0.6; difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.6 to -1.3; P = .002; among caregivers: -3.8 vs 0.6; difference, -4.5; 95% CI, -6.7 to -2.3; P < .001), anxiety (among survivors: -6.0 vs 0.3; difference, -6.3; 95% CI, -8.8 to -3.8; P < .001; among caregivers: -5.0 vs -0.9; difference, -4.1; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.5, P = .002), and PTS (among survivors: -11.3 vs 1.0; difference, -12.3; 95% CI, -18.1 to -6.5, P < .001; among caregivers, -11.4 vs 5.0; difference, -16.4, 95% CI, -21.8 to -10.9; P < .001). Improvements sustained through the 12-week follow-up visit. We also observed RT-dependent improvement in dyadic interpersonal interactions for survivors (0.2 vs -0.2; difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.0 to 0.8; P = .04).

Conclusions and relevance

In this pilot randomized clinical trial, RT was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing chronic emotional distress in dyads of survivors of the neuroscience intensive care unit and their informal caregivers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03694678.

SUBMITTER: Vranceanu AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7557506 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:A stroke is a sudden, life-altering event with potentially devastating consequences for survivors and their loved ones. Despite advances in endovascular and neurocritical care approaches to stroke treatment and recovery, there remains a considerable unmet need for interventions targeting the emotional impact of stroke for both patients and their informal caregivers. This is important because untreated emotional distress becomes chronic and negatively impacts quality of life in both patients and caregivers. Our team previously used mixed methods to iteratively develop a six-session modular dyadic intervention to prevent chronic emotional distress in patients with stroke and their informal caregivers called "Recovering Together" (RT) using feedback from dyads and the medical team. The aim of the current study is to test the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of screening and randomization methods, acceptability of RT, satisfaction with RT, feasibility of the assessment process at all time points, and acceptability of outcome measures. Secondarily, we aimed to explore within-treatment effect sizes and change in clinically significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress (PTS). The larger goal was to strengthen methodological rigor before a subsequent efficacy trial. Methods:We conducted a feasibility randomized controlled trial to evaluate the RT intervention relative to minimally enhanced usual care (MEUC) in stroke patients admitted to a Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit (Neuro-ICU). Dyads were enrolled within 1 week of hospitalization if they met specific eligibility criteria. Assessments were done via paper and pencil at baseline, and electronically via REDCap or over the phone at post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks after baseline), and 3 months later. Assessments included demographics, resiliency intervention targets (mindfulness, coping, self-efficacy, and interpersonal bond), and emotional distress (depression, anxiety, and PTS). Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability markers. Secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety, PTS, mindfulness, coping, self-efficacy, and interpersonal bond. Results:We consented 20 dyads, enrolled 17, and retained 16. Although many patients were missed before we could approach them, very few declined to participate or dropped out once study staff made initial contact. Feasibility of enrollment (87% of eligible dyads enrolled), acceptability of screening, and randomization (all RT dyads retained after randomization) were excellent. Program satisfaction (RT post-test M = 11.33/12 for patients M = 12/12 for caregivers), and adherence to treatment sessions (six of seven RT dyads attending 4/6 sessions) were high. There were no technical difficulties that affected the delivery of the intervention. There was minimal missing data. For both patients and caregivers, participation in RT was generally associated with clinically significant improvement in emotional distress symptoms from baseline to post-test. Participation in MEUC was associated with clinically significant worsening in emotional distress. Although some of the improvement in emotional distress symptoms decreased in the RT group between post-test to 3 months, these changes were not clinically significant. RT was also associated with substantial decrease in frequency of individuals who met criteria for clinically significant symptoms, while the opposite was true for MEUC. There were many lessons that informed current and future research. Conclusions:This study provided evidence of feasibility and signal of improvement in RT, as well as necessary methodological changes to increase recruitment efficiency before the future hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial. Trial registration:NCT02797509.

Project description:Introduction Stroke is known as one of the leading causes of mortality and disability worldwide. Self-care plays a significant role in improving the quality of life, self-efficacy and many other outcomes of stroke survivors. However, it is a dyadic phenomenon where patient self-care and the caregiver contribution to self-care are inter-related in terms of predictors and outcomes. Currently, there is still no systematic assessment conducted to examine the overall effectiveness of self-care interventions carried out in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads and explore the effect on stroke survivor and/or caregiver outcomes. Methods We plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence regarding the self-care interventions carried out in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads. We will undertake a systematic search of multiple databases including PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and four Chinese databases (CNKI, CBM, WANFANG and VIP) from inception to July 2021 for the purpose of collecting the relevant articles. The eligible studies are defined as those original researches, written in English or Chinese, on self-care interventions in stroke survivor–caregiver dyad samples. Two independent researchers will be deployed to identify the eligible trials according to the selection criteria and extract the relevant data. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. We will use the Cochrane Risk for Bias tool to assess the risk of bias for randomised controlled trials. Ethics and dissemination In our review, any identifiable patient data will be excluded, which removes the need for ethical approval and participant consent. The final results of our study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021239824.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Informal caregivers-that is, close family and friends providing unpaid emotional or instrumental care-of patients admitted to ICUs are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder. As a first step toward developing interventions to prevent posttraumatic stress disorder in ICU caregivers, we examined the predictive validity of psychosocial risk screening during admission for caregiver posttraumatic stress disorder at 3 and 6 months post hospitalization. DESIGN:An observational, prospective study. PARTICIPANTS:Ninety-nine caregivers were recruited as part of a longitudinal research program of patient-caregiver dyads in a neuroscience ICU. INTERVENTION:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Caregiver posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms were assessed during admission (baseline), 3 months, and 6 months post hospitalization. We 1) characterized prevalence of clinically significant symptoms at each time point 2); calculated sensitivity and specificity of baseline posttraumatic stress disorder screening in predicting posttraumatic stress disorder at 3 and 6 months; and 3) used recursive partitioning to select potential baseline factors and examine the extent to which they helped predict clinically significant posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms at each time point. Rates of caregiver posttraumatic stress disorder remained relatively stable over time (16-22%). Screening for posttraumatic stress disorder at baseline predicted posttraumatic stress disorder at 3 and 6 months with moderate sensitivity (75-80%) and high specificity (92-95%). Screening for posttraumatic stress disorder at baseline was associated with caregiver anxiety, mindfulness (i.e., ability to be aware of one's thoughts and feelings in the moment), and bond with patient. Furthermore, baseline posttraumatic stress disorder screening was the single most relevant predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder at 3 and 6 months, such that other baseline factors did not significantly improve predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS:Screening neuroscience ICU caregivers for clinically significant posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms during admission is the single most important way to identify the majority of those likely to suffer from chronic posttraumatic stress disorder following discharge. Addressing early posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and their psychosocial correlates during admission may help prevent chronic posttraumatic stress disorder in these at-risk caregivers.

Project description:BackgroundThe Warburg effect, characterized by elevated lactate levels without tissue hypoxia or shock, has been described in patients with aggressive lymphoproliferative malignancies. However, the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes in this population remain poorly understood.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 135 patients with aggressive lymphoproliferative malignancies admitted to the ICU between January 2017 and December 2022. Patients were classified into three groups: Clinical Warburg Effect (CWE), No Warburg with High Lactate level (NW-HL), and No Warburg with Normal Lactate level (NW-NL). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between the groups and factors associated with 1-year mortality and CWE were identified using multivariable analyses.ResultsOf the 135 patients, 46 (34%) had a CWE. This group had a higher proportion of Burkitt and T cell lymphomas, greater tumor burden, and more frequent bone and cerebral involvement than the other groups. At 1 year, 72 patients (53%) died, with significantly higher mortality in the CWE and NW-HL groups (70% each) than in the NW-NL group (38%). Factors independently associated with 1-year mortality were age [HR = 1.02 CI 95% (1.00-1.04)], total SOFA score at admission [HR = 1.19 CI 95% (1.12-1.25)], and CWE [HR = 3.87 CI 95% (2.13-7.02)]. The main factors associated with the CWE were tumor lysis syndrome [OR = 2.84 CI 95% (1.14-7.42)], bone involvement of the underlying malignancy [OR = 3.58 CI 95% (1.02-12.91)], the total SOFA score at admission [OR = 0.81 CI 95% (0.69-0.91)] and hypoglycemia at admission [OR = 14.90 CI 95% (5.42-47.18)].ConclusionCWE is associated with a higher tumor burden and increased 1-year mortality compared to patients without this condition. Our findings underscore the importance of recognizing patients with CWE as a high-risk cohort, as their outcomes closely resemble those of individuals with lymphoma and shock, despite not requiring advanced organ support. Clinicians should recognize the urgency of managing these patients and consider early intervention to improve their prognosis.