Wendy G Lichtenthal1,2, Martin Viola2, Madeline Rogers1,2, Kailey E Roberts1,3, Lindsay Lief2,4, Christopher E Cox5, Chris R Brewin6, Jiehui Cici Xu2, Paul K Maciejewski2, Cynthia X Pan2,7, Taylor Coats1, Daniel J Ouyang2, Shayna Rabin2,3, Susan C Vaughan8, William Breitbart1, Marjorie E Marenberg9, Holly G Prigerson2. 1. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Center for Research on End-of-Life Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 3. Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 6. Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK. 7. Division of Geriatrics & Palliative Care Medicine, NewYork-Presbyterian Queens, Flushing, NY. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY. 9. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to develop and refine EMPOWER (Enhancing and Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness and Resilience), a brief manualized cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and promise in improving surrogates' mental health and patient outcomes. METHOD: Part 1 involved obtaining qualitative stakeholder feedback from 5 bereaved surrogates and 10 critical care and mental health clinicians. Stakeholders were provided with the manual and prompted for feedback on its content, format, and language. Feedback was organized and incorporated into the manual, which was then re-circulated until consensus. In Part 2, surrogates of critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) reporting moderate anxiety or close attachment were enrolled in an open trial of EMPOWER. Surrogates completed six, 15-20 min modules, totaling 1.5-2 h. Surrogates were administered measures of peritraumatic distress, experiential avoidance, prolonged grief, distress tolerance, anxiety, and depression at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS: Part 1 resulted in changes to the EMPOWER manual, including reducing jargon, improving navigability, making EMPOWER applicable for a range of illness scenarios, rearranging the modules, and adding further instructions and psychoeducation. Part 2 findings suggested that EMPOWER is feasible, with 100% of participants completing all modules. The acceptability of EMPOWER appeared strong, with high ratings of effectiveness and helpfulness (M = 8/10). Results showed immediate post-intervention improvements in anxiety (d = -0.41), peritraumatic distress (d = -0.24), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.23). At the 3-month follow-up assessments, surrogates exhibited improvements in prolonged grief symptoms (d = -0.94), depression (d = -0.23), anxiety (d = -0.29), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.30). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Preliminary data suggest that EMPOWER is feasible, acceptable, and associated with notable improvements in psychological symptoms among surrogates. Future research should examine EMPOWER with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to develop and refine EMPOWER (Enhancing and Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness and Resilience), a brief manualized cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and promise in improving surrogates' mental health and patient outcomes. METHOD: Part 1 involved obtaining qualitative stakeholder feedback from 5 bereaved surrogates and 10 critical care and mental health clinicians. Stakeholders were provided with the manual and prompted for feedback on its content, format, and language. Feedback was organized and incorporated into the manual, which was then re-circulated until consensus. In Part 2, surrogates of critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) reporting moderate anxiety or close attachment were enrolled in an open trial of EMPOWER. Surrogates completed six, 15-20 min modules, totaling 1.5-2 h. Surrogates were administered measures of peritraumatic distress, experiential avoidance, prolonged grief, distress tolerance, anxiety, and depression at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS: Part 1 resulted in changes to the EMPOWER manual, including reducing jargon, improving navigability, making EMPOWER applicable for a range of illness scenarios, rearranging the modules, and adding further instructions and psychoeducation. Part 2 findings suggested that EMPOWER is feasible, with 100% of participants completing all modules. The acceptability of EMPOWER appeared strong, with high ratings of effectiveness and helpfulness (M = 8/10). Results showed immediate post-intervention improvements in anxiety (d = -0.41), peritraumatic distress (d = -0.24), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.23). At the 3-month follow-up assessments, surrogates exhibited improvements in prolonged grief symptoms (d = -0.94), depression (d = -0.23), anxiety (d = -0.29), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.30). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Preliminary data suggest that EMPOWER is feasible, acceptable, and associated with notable improvements in psychological symptoms among surrogates. Future research should examine EMPOWER with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.
Entities:
Keywords:
Critical care; Grief; Intensive care unit; Intervention; Surrogate decision-making
Authors: Sancho Rodríguez Villar; Marcelino Sánchez Casado; Holly G Prigerson; Silvia Mesa García; María Rodríguez Villar; Victoria A Hortigüela Martín; Carlos M Marco Schulke; Rafael Barrientos Vega; Manolo Quintana Journal: Chest Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Douglas B White; Derek C Angus; Anne-Marie Shields; Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk; Caroline Pidro; Cynthia Paner; Elizabeth Chaitin; Chung-Chou H Chang; Francis Pike; Lisa Weissfeld; Jeremy M Kahn; Joseph M Darby; Amy Kowinsky; Susan Martin; Robert M Arnold Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shannon S Carson; Christopher E Cox; Sylvan Wallenstein; Laura C Hanson; Marion Danis; James A Tulsky; Emily Chai; Judith E Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Nicholas G Wysham; Brenda Walton; Derek Jones; Brian Cass; Maria Tobin; Mattias Jonsson; Jeremy M Kahn; Douglas B White; Catherine L Hough; Carmen L Lewis; Shannon S Carson Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Danielle R Glick; Melissa Motta; Debra L Wiegand; Patrick Range; Robert M Reed; Avelino C Verceles; Nirav G Shah; Giora Netzer Journal: Intensive Crit Care Nurs Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 3.072