BACKGROUND: Patients are offered implantable defibrillators (ICDs) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, patients' decision-making process (DMP) of whether or not to accept an ICD has not been explored. We asked patients about their decision making when offered an ICD. DESIGN/ SETTING: A grounded theory methodology was employed. Patients were recruited from three ICD centres. Those who received an ICD underwent interviews the first month after implant. Declining patients had interviews at their convenience. In-depth analysis of transcripts was completed. Identified themes were placed along process pathways in a DMP model and tested. FINDINGS: Forty-four patients consented to participate (25% women). Thirty-four accepted an ICD and 10 (23%) declined. Ages ranged from 26 to 87 (mean = 65; SD = 12.5). Participants were retired (65%), had ischaemic heart disease (64%) and some post-secondary education (52%). The DMP was triggered when patient's risk for SCD was communicated. The physician's recommendation and a new awareness SCD risk were motivators to accept the ICD. Patient's decision-making approaches fell along a continuum, from active and engaged to passive and indifferent. Patient's approaches were influenced most by the following: (i) trust; (ii) social influences and (iii) health state. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care providers need to recognize the DMP pathways in which ICD candidacy and SCD risk are understood. The factors that influence a patient's decision warrant discussion pre-implant. It is imperative that patients comprehend the meaning of ICD candidacy to make an informed decision. Participants did not recall alternatives to receiving ICD therapy.
BACKGROUND:Patients are offered implantable defibrillators (ICDs) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, patients' decision-making process (DMP) of whether or not to accept an ICD has not been explored. We asked patients about their decision making when offered an ICD. DESIGN/ SETTING: A grounded theory methodology was employed. Patients were recruited from three ICD centres. Those who received an ICD underwent interviews the first month after implant. Declining patients had interviews at their convenience. In-depth analysis of transcripts was completed. Identified themes were placed along process pathways in a DMP model and tested. FINDINGS: Forty-four patients consented to participate (25% women). Thirty-four accepted an ICD and 10 (23%) declined. Ages ranged from 26 to 87 (mean = 65; SD = 12.5). Participants were retired (65%), had ischaemic heart disease (64%) and some post-secondary education (52%). The DMP was triggered when patient's risk for SCD was communicated. The physician's recommendation and a new awareness SCD risk were motivators to accept the ICD. Patient's decision-making approaches fell along a continuum, from active and engaged to passive and indifferent. Patient's approaches were influenced most by the following: (i) trust; (ii) social influences and (iii) health state. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care providers need to recognize the DMP pathways in which ICD candidacy and SCD risk are understood. The factors that influence a patient's decision warrant discussion pre-implant. It is imperative that patients comprehend the meaning of ICD candidacy to make an informed decision. Participants did not recall alternatives to receiving ICD therapy.
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alan Kadish; Alan Dyer; James P Daubert; Rebecca Quigg; N A Mark Estes; Kelley P Anderson; Hugh Calkins; David Hoch; Jeffrey Goldberger; Alaa Shalaby; William E Sanders; Andi Schaechter; Joseph H Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patricia H Strachan; Sonya de Laat; Sandra L Carroll; Lisa Schwartz; Katie Vaandering; Gurjit K Toor; Heather M Arthur Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Mohammad A Zakeri; Nadia Sedri; Golamreza Bazmandegan; Maryam Zakeri; Mohammad Safariyan; Mahlagha Dehghan Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-13
Authors: Abigale L Ottenberg; Paul S Mueller; Rachel J Topazian; Sharon Kaufman; Keith M Swetz Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Sandra L Carroll; Gayathri Embuldeniya; Jasprit Pannag; Krystina B Lewis; Jeff S Healey; Michael McGillion; Lehana Thabane; Dawn Stacey Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Sandra L Carroll; Michael McGillion; Dawn Stacey; Jeff S Healey; Gina Browne; Heather M Arthur; Lehana Thabane Journal: Trials Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Sandra L Carroll; Dawn Stacey; Michael McGillion; Jeff S Healey; Gary Foster; Sarah Hutchings; Heather M Arthur; Gina Browne; Lehana Thabane Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2017-11-21