Perceptions of illness as predictive factors for perceived stress in patients participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program

Physical and Psychological Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Traditional Cardiac Rehabilitation and Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation

PURPOSE

Both traditional cardiac rehabilitation (TCR) and intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR) have proven benefits for patients with cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to compare ICR versus TCR on cardiac rehabilitation (CR) outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study of 970 patients (n = 251, ICR; n = 719, TCR) who were referred for CR between January 2018 and December 2019, 693 (71.4%) patients completed it. The TCR sessions were 90 min (60-min exercise) three times/wk for 12 wk, while ICR sessions were 4 hr (60-min exercise) two times/wk for 9 wk. Primary endpoints were change in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) (by difference in exercise prescription metabolic equivalents [METs] between the last session and the average of the second and third sessions), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) scores, percent depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) scores, and health status (36-item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental composite scores). Linear regression adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics (age, race, and diagnosis of angina).

RESULTS

Of the 693 patients who completed CR (ICR = 204/251 [81%] vs TCR = 489/719 [68%], P < .01), mean age was 66 yr and 31% were female. Patients in TCR had a higher improvement in CRF (CR session METs: ICR +1.5 ± 1.2 vs TCR +1.9 ± 1.5, P < .01) but no difference in health status scores. Conversely, patients in ICR had more reduction in anxiety scores (-2 ± 4 vs -1 ± 3, P < .01) and percent reduction in depression scores (-8.3 ± 13.7% vs -5.0 ± 11.7%, P < .01) than patients in TCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in TCR had higher improvement in CRF while patients in ICR had higher improvement in anxiety and depression scores.

Mindfulness Affects the Level of Psychological Distress in Patients With Lung Cancer via Illness Perception and Perceived Stress: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Purpose

The aims of the study were first to investigate the association between illness perception and psychological distress and second to determine whether mindfulness affects psychological distress via illness perception and perceived stress in patients with lung cancer.

Methods

Among 300 patients with lung cancer who participated in this cross-sectional study, 295 patients made valid responses to distress thermometer (DT), the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ), and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) between January and July 2021. The possible pathways of mindfulness affecting psychological distress were analyzed based on the structural equation modeling analysis.

Results

A total of 24.4% patients with lung cancer had DT > 4. Illness perception (β = 0.17, p = 0.002) and perceived stress (β = 0.23, p < 0.001) had a direct effect on psychological distress. Mindfulness had a direct effect on illness perception (β = -0.16, p = 0.006) and mindfulness indirectly influenced psychological distress (β = -0.04, p = 0.009) through affecting illness perception alone or simultaneously affecting both the illness perception and perceived stress in patients with lung cancer.

Conclusion

Lung cancer suffered from varying levels of psychological distress. Mindfulness may alleviate psychological distress by reducing the level of illness perception and perceived stress. We suggest developing a comprehensive factor model to clarify potential mechanisms of mindfulness on psychological distress due to the very low effect of mindfulness on psychological distress via illness perception and perceived stress.