4.0 Article

The impact of illness perceptions and disease severity on quality of life in congenital heart disease

期刊

CARDIOLOGY IN THE YOUNG
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 100-109

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1047951114002728

关键词

Illness perceptions; depression; anxiety; quality of life; CHD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Despite an increasing prevalence of adults living with a CHD, little is known about the psychosocial impact of CHD. We sought to investigate the relative impact of disease severity and patients' perceptions about their condition on depression, anxiety, and quality of life over a period of a year. Methods A total of 110 patients aged over 16 years completed an initial questionnaire containing measures for anxiety, depression, quality of life, and illness perceptions when they attended the Adult Congenital Heart Disease Clinic. Cardiologists rated the patients' disease severity and illness course. A year later, patients were invited to complete the same measures. Regression analyses were performed to determine the relative impact of illness perceptions and disease severity on psychological outcomes a year later. Results At baseline, 23% of the study population had depressive symptoms and 30% had elevated trait anxiety. After controlling for associations with disease-related variables, illness perceptions explained 28% of the variance in depression, 40% anxiety, and 27% overall quality of life at baseline. Baseline illness perceptions bivariately predicted quality of life, cardiac anxiety, and depression 1 year later, and regression analyses controlling for other factors showed that they were significant predictors of outcomes 1 year later. Conclusion Symptoms of depression and anxiety are common among adults with CHD. Patients' illness perceptions are related to psychological outcomes, especially cross-sectionally. Future research could investigate whether an intervention to discuss patients' perceptions about their CHD can improve mental health and quality of life.

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

4.0
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