| Literature DB >> 35174590 |
Jie Wang1, Shenxinyu Liu1, Zhipeng Bao2, Min Gao2, Yuanyuan Peng3, Yangxi Huang1, Tianxi Yu1, Lin Wang2, Guozhen Sun1,2.
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence on experiences of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) during the course of diagnosis and treatment. We addressed three main questions: (a) What were the experiences of patients with AF during the course of diagnosis and treatment? (b) How did they respond to and cope with the disease? (c) What were the requirements during disease management?Entities:
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; coping strategies; demands; diagnosis and treatment; qualitative synthesis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35174590 PMCID: PMC9122416 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Expect ISSN: 1369-6513 Impact factor: 3.318
Search terms
| Search block | Search items |
|---|---|
| Population | ‘Atrial Fibrillation’ OR ‘Auricular Fibrillation’ OR ‘atrium fibrillation’ OR ‘Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation’ OR ‘Persistent atrial fibrillation’ OR ‘PAF’ OR ‘PeAF’ OR ‘AF’ |
| Experience | ‘illness experience’ OR ‘experience’ OR ‘feeling*’ OR ‘symptom*’ OR ‘need*’ OR ‘demand’ OR ‘perception’ OR ‘thought*’ OR ‘preference’ OR ‘attitude’ |
| Study design | ‘qualitative research’ OR ‘qualitative study’ OR ‘grounded theory’ OR ‘focus group’ OR ‘participant observation’ OR ‘phenomenology’ OR ‘action research’ |
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection
Quality assessment based on the CASP Qualitative Research Checklist (2018)
| Selected studies | CASP checklist criteria | Meeting quality criteria | Quality grade | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||
| Altiok et al. (2015) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| Bergtun et al. (2019) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | B |
| Deaton et al. (2003) | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | U | U | Y | Y | Y | 7 | B |
| McCabe et al. (2011) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| McCabe et al. (2015) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| Nørgaard et al. (2015) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| Redman et al. (2017) | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | B |
| Rush et al. (2015) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| Salmasi et al. (2018) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | B |
| Taylor et al. (2017) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| Thrysoee et al. (2018) | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | B |
| Wilson et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| Shen et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | 7 | B |
| Li et al. (2014) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| McCabe et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | B |
Note: CASP criteria for qualitative studies: (1) Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? (2) Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? (3) Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? (4) Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? (5) Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? (6) Has the relationship between the researcher and participants been adequately considered? (7) Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? (8) Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? (9) Is there a clear statement of the findings? (10) How valuable is the research?
Abbreviations: CASP, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme; N, no; U, unclear/cannot tell; Y, yes.
Source: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf
Application and scoring of papers included in review (two studies not suitable for the checklist were excluded)
| Research team and reflexivity score/14 | Study design score/24 | Analysis and findings score/12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Interviewer/facilitator |
Credentials |
Occupation |
Gender |
Experience and training |
Relationship established |
Participant knowledge of interviewer |
Interviewer characteristics |
Methodological orientation and theory |
Sampling |
Method of approach |
Sample size |
Nonparticipation |
Setting of data collection |
Presence of non‐participants |
Description of sample |
Interview guide |
Re[eat interviews |
Audio/visual recordings |
Field notes |
Duration |
Data saturation |
Transcripts returned |
Number of data codes |
Description of coding tree |
Derivation of themes |
Software |
Participant checking reporting |
Quotations presented |
Data and findings consistent |
Clarity of major themes |
Clarity of minor themes | |
| Altiok et al. (2015) | N | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Bergtun et al. (2019) | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Deaton et al. (2003) | N | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| McCabe et al. (2011) | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
| McCabe et al. (2015) | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Nørgaard et al. (2015) | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Rush et al. (2015) | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Salmasi et al. (2018) | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Taylor et al. (2017) | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Wilson et al. (2020) | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Shen et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Li et al. (2014) | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| McCabe et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
Note: Two studies not suitable for the checklist were excluded.
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32‐item checklist: (1) Which author(s) conducted the interview or focus group? (2) What were the researcher's credentials? e.g., PhD, MD, and so forth. (3) What was their occupation at the time of the study? (4) Was the researcher male or female? (5) What experience or training did the researcher have? (6) Was a relationship established before study commencement? (7) What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g., personal goals, reasons for doing the research, and so forth. (8) What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g., bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic. (9) What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? e.g., grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis, and so forth. (10) How were participants selected? e.g., purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball. (11) How were participants approached? e.g., face‐to‐face, telephone, mail, email. (12) How many participants were in the study? (13) How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? (14) Where was the data collected? e.g., home, clinic, workplace, and so forth. (15) Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? (16) What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g., demographic data, and so forth. (17) Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? (18) Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? (19) Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? (20) Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? (21) What was the duration of the interviews or focus groups? (22) Was data saturation discussed? (23) Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? (24) How many data coders coded the data? (25) Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? (26) Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? (27) What software, if applicable, was used to manage data? (28) Did participants provide feedback on the findings? (29) Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g., participant number. (30) Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? (31) Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? (32) Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes?
Abbreviations: N, no; Y, yes.
Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review
| First author (year) | Country of origin | Methodological design and data collection | Sample and sample size | Research question | Findings relevant to the review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Altiok (2015) | Turkey | Phenomenological research/semi‐structured interviews | 32 Adults patients diagnosed with AF > 6 months | To investigate their perspectives and coping behaviours towards their condition | 1. Mental status regarding the disease |
| 2. Social status regarding the disease | |||||
| 3. Physical condition regarding the disease | |||||
| 4. Disease management and coping with disease | |||||
| Bergtun (2019) | Norway | Deductive qualitative research/semi‐unstructured, interviews | 19 Patients with AF (11 males and 8 females) | To describe patients' experiences from a holistic perspective 1–6 months after AF ablation | 1. Having unexpected complications with a slower recovery |
| 2. Discovering one's own self‐management strategies when lacking information and insufficient follow‐up | |||||
| 3. Managing resentment through different coping strategies while emotional reactions depended on feeling better or worse | |||||
| 4. Failing to receive full understanding and support from close ones, with social consequences when the biophysical level did not return to normal | |||||
| 5. Gradually adopting new life perspectives with a hope for a better future, despite having unmet expectations and uncertainty, leading to discovery of existential matters | |||||
| Deaton (2003) | America | Descriptive qualitative research/semi‐structured interviews | 11 ICD‐AT patients (3 females and 8 males) | To describe experience of patients living with symptomatic, drug‐refractory AF and acceptance of treatment with ICD‐AT | 1. Pre‐ICD‐AT implant themes: process of seeking a diagnosis and treatment plan |
| 2. Decision‐making and device implantation: the end of the road | |||||
| 3. Post‐ICD‐AT themes: living with the ICD‐AF | |||||
| McCabe (2011) | America | Descriptive qualitative research/open‐ended interviews | 15 Patients undergoing treatment with an antiarrhythmic drug or scheduled for ablation therapy for AF (7 females and 8 males) | To describe experience of living with recurrent symptomatic AF from patients' perspectives | 1. Finding the meaning of symptoms |
| 2. Feeling uninformed and unsupported | |||||
| 3. Turning points | |||||
| 4. Steering clear of AF | |||||
| 5. Managing unpredictable and function‐limiting symptoms | |||||
| 6. Emotional distress | |||||
| 7. Accommodation to AF tempered with hope for a cure | |||||
| McCabe (2015) | America | Descriptive qualitative research/open‐ended interviews | 41 Patients with AF (20 females and 21 males) | To describe patients' experiences from symptom onset to initial treatment for AF | 1. Misinterpreting symptoms |
| 2. Discovering the meaning of atrial fibrillation | |||||
| 3. Facing fears, uncertainty and moving to acceptance | |||||
| 4. Receiving validation and reassurance | |||||
| Nørgaard (2015) | Denmark | Qualitative research/semi‐structured interviews | 14 Patients receiving visualization intervention during ablation of AF (3 females and 11 males) | To investigate patients' experiences with visualization in relation to pain and anxiety during an intervention consisting of visualization, when undergoing ablation of AF | 1. Approach to visualization |
| 2. Strategies of managing pain | |||||
| 3. Strategies of managing anxiety | |||||
| 4. Benefits of visualization | |||||
| Redman (2017) | Canada | Interpretive descriptive research/qualitative, nonparticipant, observational approach | 103 Unique user names participated in the discussion; 181 threads were analysed | To determine the content and dialogue on an online message board for AF with the purpose of elucidating information and support needs from patient perspectives | 1. Sharing experiences and values |
| 2. Searching for sense | |||||
| 3. Managing the complexities of information | |||||
| 4. Acting as a wise consumer | |||||
| Rush (2015) | Canada | Descriptive qualitative research/semi‐structured interviews | 16 Patients with AF (13 males and 3 females) | To explore the stressors and coping strategies of older adults with persistent AF before and after direct current cardioversion | 1. Pre‐ and postprocedure Stressors: AF symptoms and impact, healthcare and treatment, non‐AF stressors |
| 2. Self‐management and coping strategies: emotion‐focused coping, problem‐focused coping | |||||
| Salmasi (2018) | Canada | Descriptive qualitative research/semi‐structured interviews | 10 Patients with AF (8 males and 2 females) | To gather insights into AF patients' education needs from patient and clinician viewpoints | 1. Emotional appraisal of the disease |
| 2. Information‐seeking behaviour | |||||
| 3. Knowledge gaps | |||||
| 4. Education preferences | |||||
| Taylor (2017) | England | Grounded theory/semi‐structured and open‐ended interviews | 30 Patients with persistent AF (19 males and 11 females) | To examine patients' illness and treatment beliefs and ways of coping with AF symptoms | 1. Unpredictability and uncertainty of AF and symptoms |
| 2. Coping with symptoms | |||||
| 3. Concerns and expectations about treatment | |||||
| Thrysoee (2018) | Denmark | Ethnographic research/participant observation and semi‐structured individual interviews | 14 Patients newly diagnosed with AF (7 males and 7 females) | To gain knowledge of patients' experiences of the consultation processes at a multidisciplinary AF outpatient clinic in a university hospital in Denmark | 1. Uncertainty about AF before first consultation |
| 2. Focus on the medical aspects of AF | |||||
| 3. AF is not a fatal disease | |||||
| 4. Professionalism and competence in the care of AF | |||||
| 5. Visiting the AF‐clinic—an overwhelming experience | |||||
| Wilson (2020) | Canada | Interpretive descriptive research/semi‐structured telephone interviews | 26 participants received an AF diagnosis within the 12 months before interviews (13 males and 13 females) | To explore the symptom experiences of patients receiving an early diagnosis of <48 h and a late diagnosis of ≥48 h after symptom awareness | 1. Symptom perception: symptom characteristic, imperceptible noticing, commanding attention, rest and activity |
| 2. Symptom evaluation: overall lack of concern, self‐derived theorizing, finding support for their theories, retheorizing after self‐derived theorizing, theory disruption | |||||
| 3. Symptom response: nontreatment, self‐treatment, healthcare seeking | |||||
| Shen (2020) | China | Qualitative research/semi‐structured interviews | 15 Patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation of AF (9 females and 6 males) | To understand the self‐experience and nursing needs of patients with AF after radiofrequency ablation | 1. Relief of symptoms |
| 2. Worrying about the prognosis | |||||
| 3. Meeting the demands of in‐patients | |||||
| 4. Strong demand for transitional care | |||||
| Li (2014) | China | Phenomenological research/semi‐structured depth interviews | 10 AF patients undergoing radio‐ frequency ablation under the introduction of EnSite‐NavX (4 females and 6 males) | To explore the psychological experience, coping styles and the internal needs of the patients with AF during the course of radio‐ frequency ablation under the introduction of EnSite‐NavX | 1. Various complicated emotional responses |
| 2. Various body discomforts | |||||
| 3. Adopting various ways to respond to the discomforts of the body and physiology | |||||
| 4. Requirements of the medical workers' technical operation and service attitude | |||||
| McCabe (2020) | America | Qualitative research/semi‐structured interviews | 25 Patients diagnosed with AF <18 months (8 females and 17 males) | To explore patients' values concerning the content of initial AF education, describe how providers delivered education and identify patients' preferences for approaches to education | 1. Important to know |
| 2. Recollections of the how and what of education | |||||
| 3. Preferences for educational resources |
Abbreviation: AF, atrial fibrillation; ICD‐AT, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator with atrial therapies.
Figure 2Synthesized themes and subthemes
Sensitivity analysis
| Themes | Altiok (2015) | Bergtun (2019) | Deaton (2003) | McCabe (2011) | McCabe (2015) | Nørgaard (2015) | Redman (2017) | Rush (2015) | Salmasi (2018) | Taylor (2017) | Thrysoee (2018) | Wilson (2020) | Shen (2020) | Li (2014) | McCabe (2020) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delays in seeking medical attention | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||||
| Difficulties in diagnosis | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||
| Biophysical life | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
| Psycho‐emotional life | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Sociocultural life | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
| Spiritual‐existential life | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||
| Ambivalence in decision‐making | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
| Experiences during surgical interventions | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| Concerns and expectations regarding treatment | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||
| Cognitive coping strategies | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||||
| Behavioural coping strategies | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
| Medical support | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||
| Information support | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |