ArticlePEC innovation2022
Development of a patient and clinician co-led education program to promote living well with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Insights from a pilot project.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate a pilot education program designed to improve patients' experience of living well with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Methods: Patient Partners with previously implanted ICD and clinicians collaboratively performed monthly education sessions for potential and recent ICD recipients. Curriculum development was informed by current evidence of ICD patients' unique educational needs; delivery format transitioned to a virtual platform following the onset of COVID-19. Participants' experience was evaluated using a tailored questionnaire to explore preliminary insights. Results: 126 participants (median age: 62 years; women: 30%) attended 24 sessions. In-person participants (n = 62, 49.2%) reported sessions as helpful (n = 56, 94%) with regards to format and Patient Partner interactions. Virtual participants 64 (50.8%) completed an electronic survey (n = 27, 45%); reporting sufficient information for most topics with the exception of potential psychological effects of ICD implantation. Patient Partners as collaborative session leaders was perceived to be very helpful (n = 22, 82%) or somewhat helpful (n = 5, 18%). Conclusion: This novel educational partnership met the learning needs of patients at the vulnerable time of new cardiac device implantation of both in-person and virtual formats. Innovation: The inclusion of Patient Partners in co-led cardiac education informs novel approach to care that may improve patients' experiences of living well with complex technology.
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.