A self-management support intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled pilot trial

Factors associated with self-management in older adults with multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative study

Background and purpose

Recognizing the importance of self-management in older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) is crucial for their quality of life. This qualitative study explored the factors linked to self-management among older adults with MCCs.

Materials and methods

The present study was conducted in three stages: an integrated review, qualitative interviews, and Delphi. The search used electronic databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Magiran, SID, and Iranmedex. The results of 33 studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed using conventional content analysis. A data matrix was formed; and purposeful sampling was conducted among older adults with MCCs, family caregivers, and specialists. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Data analysis of 29 interviews was conducted simultaneously with data collection using oriented qualitative content analysis and the Elo and Kyngäs approach. Three rounds of Delphi were conducted via email correspondence with a group of 30 experts to develop and validate the proposed variables.

Results

The factors that influence self-management can be categorized into various categories. Biological factors, cognitive factors, co-morbidities, socio-economic factors, health-related behaviors, mental health, interactions with healthcare teams, Family relationships, medical facility resources, employee empowerment, health policy development, and cultural influences.

Conclusion

Self-management in older Iranian adults with MCCs is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. By identifying the relevant factors, it is possible to design operational plans that promote self-management among the older adult population and are tailored to fit the specific needs of Iranian society.

Description of self-care behaviours in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulant therapy: a scoping review

AIMS

The primary aim of this scoping review was to explore and categorize the medication-related self-care behaviours exhibited by patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who are on oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A scoping review was performed, and the systematic search of the literature yielded an initial 887 records. After deduplication and screening, 61 studies were included in the analysis, ranging from 2003 to 2023. The studies represented a wide geographical distribution and diverse methodologies. The results identified 16 self-care behaviours: a higher focus of the included literature on self-care monitoring (60.65% of studies), followed by self-care management and self-care maintenance (each 16.39%). These behaviours ranged from regular blood testing to consulting healthcare providers and lifestyle changes. The results also highlighted the relationship between treatment satisfaction, self-efficacy, and adherence. Several studies emphasized the critical role of healthcare providers in influencing medication adherence. Furthermore, patient knowledge, quality of life, and psychological factors were identified as key elements affecting self-care behaviours.

CONCLUSION

The review provides a comprehensive landscape of medication-related self-care behaviours among NVAF patients on OAC therapy. It underscores the predominance of self-care monitoring behaviours and the critical roles of healthcare providers, psychological factors, and patient knowledge in influencing these behaviours. The findings also highlight the necessity for an integrated, patient-centred approach to improving self-care and self-management in OAC treatment. Future research should focus on addressing the identified gaps, including the relative lack of studies on lifestyle modification, emotional well-being, and technology-assisted interventions.

REGISTRATION

This review is part of a broader project and is documented at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05820854.

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Assessing a Virtual Education Intervention for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perceptions

BACKGROUND

Authors of studies of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have identified several knowledge gaps and misconceptions regarding the condition and its management. The COVID-19 pandemic heightened isolation of patients and underscored the need for education and knowledge building in order for patients to effectively manage AF during times of increased health risk.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess, using a qualitative approach, the experiences and perceived benefits of patients with AF regarding an 8-session virtual education intervention (AF-at-Home) during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A qualitative study with 3 focus groups using a semistructured focus group guide was conducted and recorded online with the same trained moderator.

RESULTS

We identified 7 primary themes emerging from patients' experiences: (1) building knowledge beyond information available in clinic visits, (2) managing anxiety, (3) generating self-efficacy, (4) providing social comparison, (5) perceived benefits of both experiential and informational content, (6) facilitating self-management behaviors, and (7) facilitating communication with providers.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the focus groups shows the benefits of a virtual education program in building knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy as well as reducing anxiety and normalizing one's experience by attending a program alongside other patients with AF.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

A descriptive cross-sectional study of self-management in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Self-management of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is characterized by complexity and diversity of content. Inadequate self-management exposes patients to the risk for complications such as stroke and bleeding. To assess the status and predictors of self-management in NVAF patients, a descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. The self-management scales for atrial fibrillation were used to assess the status of self-management of patients who received Warfarin, NOAC, Aspirin, or No anticoagulant therapy. The general situation questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic and clinical data from patients. A total of 555 participants completed the survey, with self-management score of 71.21 ± 12.33, 69.59 ± 13.37, 69.03 ± 12.20 and 66.12 ± 11.36 in Warfarin group, NOAC group, Aspirin group and No anticoagulant group, respectively. In Warfarin group lower educational status was associated with poor self-management; in Aspirin group, comorbidities and age < 65 years (P = .001) were associated with poor self-management; in No anticoagulant group, age < 65 years, single, poor sleep quality, and permanent AF were associated with poor self-management. Self-management was inadequate in patients with NVAF. Poor self-management might be related with the occurrence of cerebral embolism. For NVAF patients receiving anti-thrombotic therapy, relatively young age, comorbidities, and age can have a substantial impact on self-management performance; while age, type of AF, quality of sleep, married status are associated with self-management in patients with no anticoagulants.