Andreas Fors1, Karl Swedberg2, Kerstin Ulin3, Axel Wolf3, Inger Ekman3. 1. Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, Box 457, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Närhälsan Research and Development Primary Health Care, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. Electronic address: andreas.fors@gu.se. 2. Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. 3. Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, Box 457, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the long-term effect of person-centred care (PCC) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHOD:Patients with ACS were randomly assigned to treatment as usual (control group) or an added PCC intervention for six months. The primary endpoint was a composite score of changes in general self-efficacy≥five units, return to work or to a prior activity level and re-hospitalisation or death. RESULTS: The composite score improved in the PCC intervention group (n=94) at a two-year follow-up compared with the control group (n=105) (18.1%, n=17 vs. 10.5%, n=11; P=0.127). In the per-protocol analysis (n=183) the improvement was significant in favour of the PCC intervention (n=78) compared with usual care (n=105) (21.8%, n=17 vs. 10.5%, n=11; P=0.039). This effect was driven by the finding that more patients in the PCC group improved their general self-efficacy score≥5units (32.2%, n=19 vs. 17.3%, n=14; P=0.046). The composite score improvement was significantly higher in the PCC intervention group without post-secondary education (n=33) in comparison with corresponding patients in the control group (n=50) (30.3%, n=10 vs. 10.0%, n=5; P=0.024). CONCLUSION: Implementation of PCC results in sustained improvements in health outcome in patients with ACS. PCC can be incorporated into conventional cardiac prevention programmes to improve equity in uptake and patient health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Swedish registry, Researchweb.org, ID NR 65791.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To assess the long-term effect of person-centred care (PCC) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHOD:Patients with ACS were randomly assigned to treatment as usual (control group) or an added PCC intervention for six months. The primary endpoint was a composite score of changes in general self-efficacy≥five units, return to work or to a prior activity level and re-hospitalisation or death. RESULTS: The composite score improved in the PCC intervention group (n=94) at a two-year follow-up compared with the control group (n=105) (18.1%, n=17 vs. 10.5%, n=11; P=0.127). In the per-protocol analysis (n=183) the improvement was significant in favour of the PCC intervention (n=78) compared with usual care (n=105) (21.8%, n=17 vs. 10.5%, n=11; P=0.039). This effect was driven by the finding that more patients in the PCC group improved their general self-efficacy score≥5units (32.2%, n=19 vs. 17.3%, n=14; P=0.046). The composite score improvement was significantly higher in the PCC intervention group without post-secondary education (n=33) in comparison with corresponding patients in the control group (n=50) (30.3%, n=10 vs. 10.0%, n=5; P=0.024). CONCLUSION: Implementation of PCC results in sustained improvements in health outcome in patients with ACS. PCC can be incorporated into conventional cardiac prevention programmes to improve equity in uptake and patient health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Swedish registry, Researchweb.org, ID NR 65791.
Authors: Michael Gruska; Gerhard Aigner; Johann Altenberger; Dagmar Burkart-Küttner; Lukas Fiedler; Marianne Gwechenberger; Peter Lercher; Martin Martinek; Michael Nürnberg; Gerhard Pölzl; Gerold Porenta; Stefan Sauermann; Christoph Schukro; Daniel Scherr; Clemens Steinwender; Markus Stühlinger; Alexander Teubl Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Chul Kim; Jidong Sung; Jong Hwa Lee; Won Seok Kim; Goo Joo Lee; Sungju Jee; Il Young Jung; Ueon Woo Rah; Byung Ok Kim; Kyoung Hyo Choi; Bum Sun Kwon; Seung Don Yoo; Heui Je Bang; Hyung Ik Shin; Yong Wook Kim; Heeyoune Jung; Eung Ju Kim; Jung Hwan Lee; In Hyun Jung; Jae Seung Jung; Jong Young Lee; Jae Young Han; Eun Young Han; Yu Hui Won; Woosik Han; Sora Baek; Kyung Lim Joa; Sook Joung Lee; Ae Ryoung Kim; So Young Lee; Jihee Kim; Hee Eun Choi; Byeong Ju Lee; Soon Kim Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Karl Swedberg; Desmond Cawley; Inger Ekman; Heather L Rogers; Darijana Antonic; Daiga Behmane; Ida Björkman; Nicky Britten; Sandra C Buttigieg; Vivienne Byers; Mats Börjesson; Kirsten Corazzini; Andreas Fors; Bradi Granger; Boban Joksimoski; Roman Lewandowski; Virgilijus Sakalauskas; Einav Srulovici; Jan Törnell; Sara Wallström; Axel Wolf; Helen M Lloyd Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-06
Authors: Lilas Ali; Sara Wallström; Emmelie Barenfeld; Andreas Fors; Eva Fredholm; Hanna Gyllensten; Karl Swedberg; Inger Ekman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Martina Summer Meranius; Inger K Holmström; Jakob Håkansson; Agneta Breitholtz; Farah Moniri; Sofia Skogevall; Karin Skoglund; Dara Rasoal Journal: Nurs Open Date: 2020-06-10
Authors: Andreas Fors; Elin Blanck; Lilas Ali; Ann Ekberg-Jansson; Michael Fu; Irma Lindström Kjellberg; Åsa Mäkitalo; Karl Swedberg; Charles Taft; Inger Ekman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 3.240