BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is both a precipitant and a consequence of ICD shock. Therefore, the assessment of patient anxiety and concerns related to receiving an ICD shock may prompt appropriate psychological referrals and treatment. METHODS: The purpose of this study is to assess the initial validity and clinical utility of the Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS). Seventy-two ICD recipients completed the FSAS. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure with items loading such that Factor 1 could be conceptualized as a Consequence Factor (e.g., fearing creating a scene if the device were to fire) and Factor 2 as a Trigger Factor (e.g., fearing sexual activity). Alpha coefficients suggest good reliability (Cronbach's alpha= 0.91, split-half = 0.92), and FSAS Total Score was moderately correlated (r =-0.65) with total score on the Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Two subscales, labeled consequence of shock and trigger of shock, were established via factor analysis. Collectively the FSAS demonstrates potential utility to assess shock distress and warrants additional investigation.
BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is both a precipitant and a consequence of ICD shock. Therefore, the assessment of patientanxiety and concerns related to receiving an ICD shock may prompt appropriate psychological referrals and treatment. METHODS: The purpose of this study is to assess the initial validity and clinical utility of the Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS). Seventy-two ICD recipients completed the FSAS. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure with items loading such that Factor 1 could be conceptualized as a Consequence Factor (e.g., fearing creating a scene if the device were to fire) and Factor 2 as a Trigger Factor (e.g., fearing sexual activity). Alpha coefficients suggest good reliability (Cronbach's alpha= 0.91, split-half = 0.92), and FSAS Total Score was moderately correlated (r =-0.65) with total score on the Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Two subscales, labeled consequence of shock and trigger of shock, were established via factor analysis. Collectively the FSAS demonstrates potential utility to assess shock distress and warrants additional investigation.
Authors: Gianfranco Buja; N A Mark Estes; Thomas Wichter; Domenico Corrado; Frank Marcus; Gaetano Thiene Journal: Prog Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 8.194
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: Megan M Streur; Lindsey A Rosman; Samuel F Sears; Elaine E Steinke; Elaine A Thompson; Cynthia M Dougherty Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 3.802
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