4.1 Article

Health-related quality of life of patients with severe heart failure. A cross-sectional multicentre study

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF CARING SCIENCES
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 686-694

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01078.x

关键词

cardiac failure; functional capacity; Minnesota

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Heart failure is a serious chronic syndrome that is accompanied by significant physical and psychological burdens, resulting in poor quality of life. Aim: To assess the quality of life of patients with severe heart failure and its correlation with patient demographic, socio-economic and clinical characteristics. Method: We studied 199 patients with heart failure who were hospitalized in the Cardiology Department of three general hospitals of Greece during a 1-year period. Demographic and socio-economic data were obtained using a short questionnaire, while clinical data were obtained from medical record review. The assessment of the patients' quality of life was performed using Minnesota Life with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ). Findings: The mean MLWHFQ score was 62.7 (+/- 20.3). Significantly lower quality of life was found in patients with diabetes mellitus (Coefficient beta (beta) = 11.4; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 5.2-17.5), hypertension (beta = 10.3; CI, 1.4-19.1), chronic renal failure (beta = 13.9; CI, 5.9-21.9), chronic respiratory failure (beta = 11.2; CI, 4.7-17.7), cancer (beta = 12.3; CI, 2.3-22.4), psychiatric disease (beta = 10.5; CI, 0.6-20.4) and those patients who were classified in New York Heart Association class IV (beta = 10.6, CI = 4.1-17.0). Conclusions: The average score of the MLWHFQ was high, and this reflects the poor quality of life of patients. Higher scores in specific patient groups show the negative influence of these factors in quality of life. The holistic care of patients with heart failure by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals could improve their 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

4.1
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