INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of research about the impact of palliative care (PC) on perceived control (i.e. one's perceived influence over outcomes or events in the environment) and activation (i.e. ability to self-manage) in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF). Likewise, little is known about the association between perceived control, activation, and symptom distress in this patient population. We hypothesized that patients with advanced HF who received ongoing PC services (i.e. ≥2 PC consultations) vs no access or a single PC consultation would have greater improvements in perceived control and activation and greater reductions in symptom distress three months post-discharge for HF exacerbation. METHODS: Forty-two patients (average age 53.9±8.0 years; predominantly male (72%), White (61%) and married (69%)) participated in the study. However, only 36 (85.7%) patients completed an outpatient PC consultation of which 29 (69%) patients returned for additional follow-up visits with the PC team. Data on perceived control, activation, and symptom distress were collected at baseline and three months. Parametric statistical models were applied to draw conclusions. RESULTS: Findings showed that the patients who received ≥2 PC consultations had greater improvements in perceived control and activation than their counterparts; these increases were associated with greater reductions in symptom distress. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that on-going PC interventions enhance perceived control and activation in patients with advanced HF and open up the possibility of planning larger studies to assess the effect of PC on these variables as possible mediators to improvements in self-management and clinical outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of research about the impact of palliative care (PC) on perceived control (i.e. one's perceived influence over outcomes or events in the environment) and activation (i.e. ability to self-manage) in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF). Likewise, little is known about the association between perceived control, activation, and symptom distress in this patient population. We hypothesized that patients with advanced HF who received ongoing PC services (i.e. ≥2 PC consultations) vs no access or a single PC consultation would have greater improvements in perceived control and activation and greater reductions in symptom distress three months post-discharge for HF exacerbation. METHODS: Forty-two patients (average age 53.9±8.0 years; predominantly male (72%), White (61%) and married (69%)) participated in the study. However, only 36 (85.7%) patients completed an outpatient PC consultation of which 29 (69%) patients returned for additional follow-up visits with the PC team. Data on perceived control, activation, and symptom distress were collected at baseline and three months. Parametric statistical models were applied to draw conclusions. RESULTS: Findings showed that the patients who received ≥2 PC consultations had greater improvements in perceived control and activation than their counterparts; these increases were associated with greater reductions in symptom distress. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that on-going PC interventions enhance perceived control and activation in patients with advanced HF and open up the possibility of planning larger studies to assess the effect of PC on these variables as possible mediators to improvements in self-management and clinical outcomes.
Authors: Lorraine S Evangelista; Solomon Liao; Marjan Motie; Nathalie De Michelis; Jennifer Ballard-Hernandez; Dawn Lombardo Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Todd M Brown; Mercedes Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Cathleen Gillespie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; P Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary M McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Véronique L Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Véronique L Roger; Randall Stafford; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David B Bekelman; Carolyn T Nowels; Larry A Allen; Simon Shakar; Jean S Kutner; Daniel D Matlock Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Sharon McKinley; Mary Fien; Barbara Riegel; Hendrika Meischke; Mohannad E Aburuz; Terry A Lennie; Debra K Moser Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Debra K Moser; Barbara Riegel; Sharon McKinley; Lynn V Doering; Hendrika Meischke; Seongkum Heo; Terry A Lennie; Kathleen Dracup Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: John G Cagle; Morgan Bunting; Anne Kelemen; Joonyup Lee; Dorothy Terry; Ryan Harris Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Robert J Mentz; James A Tulsky; Bradi B Granger; Kevin J Anstrom; Patricia A Adams; Gwen C Dodson; Mona Fiuzat; Kimberly S Johnson; Chetan B Patel; Karen E Steinhauser; Donald H Taylor; Christopher M O'Connor; Joseph G Rogers Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jiayun Xu; Joseph J Gallo; Jennifer Wenzel; Marie T Nolan; Chakra Budhathoki; Martha Abshire; Kelsey Bower; Sofia Arruda; Deirdre Flowers; Sarah L Szanton; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Kaylin Gonzalez; Hae-Ra Han Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Chin-Yen Lin; Jennifer L Miller; Terry A Lennie; Martha J Biddle; Gia Mudd-Martin; Muna Hammash; Debra K Moser Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2020 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Ann Lindsay; Judith H Hibbard; Derek B Boothroyd; Alan Glaseroff; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 6.473