4.6 Article

The UPBEAT Nurse-Delivered Personalized Care Intervention for People with Coronary Heart Disease Who Report Current Chest Pain and Depression: A Randomised Controlled Pilot Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098704

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London
  2. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  3. Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
  4. NIHR Statistics Fellowship
  5. [RP-PG-0606-1048]
  6. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0606-1048] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
  7. National Institute for Health Research [MET-08-08-101, RP-PG-0606-1048] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Depression is common in people with coronary heart disease (CHD) and associated with worse outcome. This study explored the acceptability and feasibility of procedures for a trial and for an intervention, including its potential costs, to inform a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a nurse-led personalised care intervention for primary care CHD patients with current chest pain and probable depression. Methods: Multi-centre, outcome assessor-blinded, randomized parallel group study. CHD patients reporting chest pain and scoring 8 or more on the HADS were randomized to personalized care (PC) or treatment as usual (TAU) for 6 months and followed for 1 year. Primary outcome was acceptability and feasibility of procedures; secondary outcomes included mood, chest pain, functional status, well being and psychological process variables. Result: 1001 people from 17 General Practice CHD registers in South London consented to be contacted; out of 126 who were potentially eligible, 81 (35% female, mean age = 65 SD11 years) were randomized. PC participants (n = 41) identified wide ranging problems to work on with nurse-case managers. Good acceptability and feasibility was indicated by low attrition (9%), high engagement and minimal nurse time used (mean/SD = 78/19 mins assessment, 125/91 mins telephone follow up). Both groups improved on all outcomes. The largest between group difference was in the proportion no longer reporting chest pain (PC 37% vs TAU 18%; mixed effects model OR 2.21 95% CI 0.69, 7.03). Some evidence was seen that self efficacy (mean scale increase of 2.5 vs 0.9) and illness perceptions (mean scale increase of 7.8 vs 2.5) had improved in PC vs TAU participants at 1 year. PC appeared to be more cost effective up to a QALY threshold of approximately 3,000 pound. Conclusions: Trial and intervention procedures appeared to be feasible and acceptable. PC allowed patients to work on unaddressed problems and appears cheaper than TAU.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据