Experiences of adults living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review of qualitative evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: The objective of this review was to synthesize the best available qualitative evidence on the everyday life experiences of adults living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for cardiovascular disease. Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is a rising concern worldwide. The efficacy of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator as a successful treatment for cardiovascular disease has been well documented. Research suggests that living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator is complex and can cause substantial psychosocial distress that can manifest itself at various intervals over time. The first step to developing evidence-based recommendations related to the management of implantable cardioverter defibrillator–related distress is a critical appraisal and synthesis of relevant literature to gain a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon. Inclusion criteria: The participants of interest were adults 18 years or older who had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for the management of cardiovascular disease (e.g. ischemic heart disease, angina, cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction, congenital defect, arrhythmias, heart failure). The phenomenon of interest was the everyday life experience of adults living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The review considered all qualitative research related to the phenomenon of interest. Methods: Key databases searched were PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, OpenGrey, MedNar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Google, and Google Scholar. Published and unpublished papers and articles from 1990 to July 2018 were included in the search. The JBI approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction, and synthesis for qualitative research was used throughout the review. Results: Twenty-seven papers were included in the review that yielded 143 findings and 13 categories. The methodological quality of the 27 included studies was moderate to strong. Based on ConQual scores, confidence in the synthesized findings was moderate. From this, three synthesized findings were extracted: i) living under the shadow of uncertainty, ii) orchestrating a new normal, and iii) crafting a positive vision for the future. Conclusions: Evidence suggests that while implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients do experience psychosocial distress, they gradually positively embrace the device as part of their everyday norm. Recommendations for practice and education point to the further development of best practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator management, continuing education programs for health care providers, and strategies to support implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients and their families to cope with the device. Research that examines onset, level, and duration of implantable cardioverter defibrillator psychosocial distress is needed to target specific interventions reflective of this population's needs. While findings suggest the experiences of women living with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator are similar to men, the low number of women in included studies limits the strength of this conclusion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».