ArticleThe Journal of cardiovascular nursing
"Why Would I Choose Death?": A Qualitative Study of Patient Understanding of the Role and Limitations of Cardiac Devices.
Article in The Journal of cardiovascular nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to health literacy of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A qualitative approach.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Article
- Screening and Needs Assessment Tools for Palliative Care in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: Narrative Review.Current heart failure reports · 2025Review
- Health-related quality of life in a large cohort of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices A registry-based study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Patient Perceptions and Quality of Life in Pacemaker Recipients.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2021Article
- Implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation and advance care planning: a focus group study.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough cardiology organizations recommend early introduction of palliative care for patients with heart failure (HF), integration has remained challenging, particularly in patients with cardiac devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices and left ventricular assist devices. Study authors suggest that patients often have limited and erroneous understanding of these devices and their implications for future care.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess perceptions of cardiac devices in patients with HF and how these perceptions impacted advance care planning and future expectations.
methodsThis study used qualitative semistructured interviews with 18 community-dwelling patients with New York Heart Association stage II to IV HF.
resultsWe interviewed 18 patients (mean ejection fraction, 38%; mean age, 64 years; 33% female; 83% white; 39% New York Heart Association class II, 39% class III, and 22% class IV). All had a cardiac implantable electronic device (6% permanent pacemaker, 56% implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 28% biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator); 11% had left ventricular assist devices. Patients with devices frequently misunderstood the impact of their device on cardiac function. A majority expressed the belief that the device would forestall further deterioration, regardless of whether this was the case. This anticipation of stability was often accompanied by the expectation that emerging technologies would continue to preempt decline. Citing this faith in technology, these patients frequently saw limited value in advance care planning.
conclusionsIn our sample, patients with cardiac devices overestimated the impact of their devices on preventing disease progression and death and deprioritized advance care planning as a result.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.