INTRODUCTION: Patient acceptance of implantable device therapy has been established as an important outcome but the operationalization and validation of a measure of patient acceptance of implantable device therapy has not been fully completed. This study sought to validate a new measure of patient acceptance of cardiac implantable devices called the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS). METHODS: The sample consisted of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD; n = 58), and implantable atrioverter defibrillator (ICD-AT; n = 96), and pacemaker (PM, n = 84) patients. Mean age of all participants was 69 years; they were mostly male (62%) and married (75%). The final FPAS comprised 15 items with four consistent factors: Return to Function, Device-Related Distress, Positive Appraisal, and Body Image Concerns. RESULTS: The total FPAS demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83), and internal consistency for each of the subscales ranged from 0.74 to 0.89. The FPAS demonstrated convergent, divergent, and discriminant validity when compared to other self-report measures of QOL, atrial symptoms, depression, and anxiety. A total FPAS score can be formed and between group comparisons with this sample indicated that ICD patients report a high level of acceptance (mean = 76), ICD-AT patients report a significantly higher level of acceptance (mean = 81.1), and PM patients reported the highest level of patient acceptance (mean = 85.4) of these implantable device groups. CONCLUSION: This initial psychometric investigation of the FPAS suggests that the FPAS may be useful in both clinical and research settings to assess patient acceptance of implantable cardiac devices.
INTRODUCTION:Patient acceptance of implantable device therapy has been established as an important outcome but the operationalization and validation of a measure of patient acceptance of implantable device therapy has not been fully completed. This study sought to validate a new measure of patient acceptance of cardiac implantable devices called the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS). METHODS: The sample consisted of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD; n = 58), and implantable atrioverter defibrillator (ICD-AT; n = 96), and pacemaker (PM, n = 84) patients. Mean age of all participants was 69 years; they were mostly male (62%) and married (75%). The final FPAS comprised 15 items with four consistent factors: Return to Function, Device-Related Distress, Positive Appraisal, and Body Image Concerns. RESULTS: The total FPAS demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83), and internal consistency for each of the subscales ranged from 0.74 to 0.89. The FPAS demonstrated convergent, divergent, and discriminant validity when compared to other self-report measures of QOL, atrial symptoms, depression, and anxiety. A total FPAS score can be formed and between group comparisons with this sample indicated that ICDpatients report a high level of acceptance (mean = 76), ICD-ATpatients report a significantly higher level of acceptance (mean = 81.1), and PM patients reported the highest level of patient acceptance (mean = 85.4) of these implantable device groups. CONCLUSION: This initial psychometric investigation of the FPAS suggests that the FPAS may be useful in both clinical and research settings to assess patient acceptance of implantable cardiac devices.
Authors: Mohammed Qintar; Jason J George; Melanie Panko; Scott Bea; Karen A Broer; Julie St John; Kecia-Ann Blissett; Elizabeth Ching; Samuel F Sears; Susanne S Pedersen; Leopoldo Pozuelo; Mina K Chung Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Alan H Kadish; David Bello; J Paul Finn; Robert O Bonow; Andi Schaechter; Haris Subacius; Christine Albert; James P Daubert; Carissa G Fonseca; Jeffrey J Goldberger Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2009-07-01
Authors: Christina S McCrae; Alicia J Roth; Jessica Ford; Earl C Crew; Jamie B Conti; Richard B Berry; Samuel F Sears Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Eva R Serber; Joseph L Fava; Lillian M Christon; Alfred E Buxton; Jeffrey J Goldberger; Michael R Gold; James R Rodrigue; Michael B Frisch Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Sandra B Dunbar; Jonathan J Langberg; Carolyn M Reilly; Bindu Viswanathan; Frances McCarty; Steven D Culler; Marian C O'Brien; William S Weintraub Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Susanne S Pedersen; Viola Spek; Dominic A M J Theuns; Marco Alings; Pepijn van der Voort; Luc Jordaens; Pim Cuijpers; Johan Denollet; Krista C van den Broek Journal: Trials Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Florian Leppert; Johannes Siebermair; Ulrich Wesemann; Eimo Martens; Stefan M Sattler; Stefan Scholz; Stefan Veith; Wolfgang Greiner; Tienush Rassaf; Stefan Kääb; Reza Wakili Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 5.460