Monitoring device acceptance in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients using the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient device acceptance might be essential in identifying patients at risk for adverse patient-reported outcomes following implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We examined the validity and reliability of the Florida Patient Acceptance Scale (FPAS) and identified correlates of device acceptance in a Dutch cohort of ICD patients. METHODS: Patients with a first-time ICD (N = 272, mean age = 59.2 ± 11.9, 82% men) recruited from the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, or the Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands completed the FPAS, the Type D Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that eliminating three items from the FPAS, leaving 12 items contributing to three factors, is equivalent to the original four-factor version of the FPAS. The abbreviated FPAS had a high internal consistency both for the total scale and all subscales, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.76 to 0.82. Anxiety (odds ratio [OR]: 9.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.38-39.87; P = 0.002), depression (OR: 2.96; 95% CI: 0.98-8.93; P = 0.05), and the distressed (Type D) personality (OR: 5.04; 95% CI: 1.50-16.92; P = 0.01), but not demographic and clinical factors including shocks, were significant independent correlates of poor device acceptance. CONCLUSION: A shortened 12-item, three-factor version of the FPAS was shown to be a valid and internally consistent instrument to assess device acceptance in Dutch ICD patients. Psychological but not clinical factors were the primary correlates of device acceptance, which underlines the importance of taking into account the patient's psychological profile when seeking to identify patients at risk for adjustment difficulties after ICD implantation.

Self-management programmes for COPD: moving forward.

Self-management is of increasing importance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. However, there is confusion over what processes are involved, how the value of self-management should be determined, and about the research priorities. To gain more insight into and agreement about the content of programmes, outcomes, and future directions of COPD self-management, a group of interested researchers and physicians, all of whom had previously published on this subject and who had previously collaborated on other projects, convened a workshop. This article summarises their initial findings. Self-management programmes aim at structural behaviour change to sustain treatment effects after programmes have been completed. The programmes should include techniques aimed at behavioural change, be tailored individually, take the patient's perspective into account, and may vary with the course of the patient's disease and co-morbidities. Assessment should include process variables. This report is a step towards greater conformity in the field of self-management. To enhance clarity regarding effectiveness, future studies should clearly describe their intervention, be properly designed and powered, and include outcomes that focus more on the acquisition and practice of new skills. In this way more evidence and a better comprehension on self-management programmes will be obtained, and more specific formulation of guidelines on self-management made possible.