Mobile Education and Telephone Monitoring for ICD Patients: Effects on Anxiety, Acceptance, and Self-Efficacy

Official title

The Effect of a Mobile Education Program and Telephone Monitoring Developed for Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators on Shock Anxiety, Device Acceptance, and Self-Efficacy

Overview

Aim: This study was conducted to determine the effect of a mobile education program and telephone monitoring developed for patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) on shock anxiety, device acceptance, and self-efficacy. Method: The study was designed as a single-blind, randomized controlled trial consisting of two phases. In the first phase, the Mobile ICD Education Program (M-ICDEP) was developed. In the second phase, the effectiveness of M-ICDEP was evaluated through a randomized controlled design with 88 ICD patients who attended routine battery check-ups. Research data were collected through the mobile education program using the Personal Information Form, Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS), Florida Patient Acceptance Scale (FPAS), and the Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations Scales After ICD Implantation (OE-ICD and SB-ICD). Additionally, patients underwent a shock management simulation via M-ICDEP, and their data were assessed using the Shock Management Control Form, which was included in the evaluation of shock anxiety. Patients in both the intervention and control groups used M-ICDEP for three months. The control group had access only to the brief educational booklet section containing general information, while the intervention group had access to all sections. Patients in the intervention group also received telephone follow-ups during the second, fifth, and eighth weeks of the monitoring period. Data were collected twice: once before the intervention (pre-test) and once in the third month (post-test). Statistical analyses will conducted using the SAS 9.4 software package.

Detailed description

1. Definition and Importance of the Problem

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are devices developed to prevent sudden cardiac death resulting from ventricular arrhythmias. According to the 2017 guidelines of the European Heart Rhythm Association, the annual number of ICD implantations per million people is reported to be 107 worldwide and 115 in Turkey. Furthermore, over the past decade, implantation rates have increased by 44% globally and 804.1% in Turkey. Although ICD therapy has been proven to reduce mortality by 28-40% and is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs, living with an ICD can lead to various psychosocial problems in patients. In particular, anxiety and device adaptation problems are frequently encountered after implantation.

The foreign nature of the ICD, concerns about living dependently on the device, its activation during potentially fatal arrhythmias, and its capability to deliver shocks contribute to increased anxiety. Studies indicate that 44-55% of patients experience shock-related anxiety, with uncertainty regarding the sensation, location, and timing of shocks exacerbating this distress. Additionally, 95% of individuals who have experienced a shock develop anxiety. Anxiety and shock experiences can hinder device acceptance, adversely affecting patients' daily lives. It has been reported that individuals struggling with device acceptance exhibit lower levels of self-efficacy and that self-efficacy plays a crucial psychological role in disease adaptation. Consequently, assessing patients' self-efficacy is of significant importance.

Adequate patient education, telephone follow-ups, and continuous care have been shown to enhance device acceptance and self-efficacy. Despite the recognized importance of patient education and follow-up, 97% of ICD patients report needing further education and monitoring, suggesting a gap in the provision of necessary training.

Currently, innovative and interactive educational methods, such as mobile health applications and simulation techniques, are widely used for patient education. Mobile applications facilitate easy access to information, while simulation methods provide a realistic learning environment by allowing patients to experience real-life scenarios. While international literature includes studies on the use of mobile health applications for ICD patient monitoring, no studies have been identified that apply a mobile education program. Therefore, this study is expected to contribute innovatively to the literature by providing a realistic learning environment through a mobile education program incorporating different algorithms and a shock management simulation. Additionally, it is hypothesized that mobile education programs and telephone monitoring may improve patients' shock anxiety, device acceptance, and self-efficacy levels.

\--- 2. Aim of the Study

This study aims to determine the effect of a mobile education program and telephone monitoring developed for ICD patients on shock anxiety, device acceptance, and self-efficacy. It has been designed as a single-blind, randomized controlled trial consisting of two phases. The first phase involves the development of the mobile education program, while the second phase aims to evaluate the impact of the program on patients' shock anxiety, device acceptance, and self-efficacy.

* Research Hypotheses

The research hypotheses are formulated as follows:

Compared to the control group, ICD patients in the intervention group who receive the mobile education program and telephone monitoring will experience:

1. H1: A decrease in shock anxiety levels. 2. H1: An increase in device acceptance levels. 3. H1: An increase in self-efficacy and outcome expectations levels.

Interventions

• Other The mobile training program and telephone follow-ups
  The study had three phases: pre-test, implementation, and post-test. Data were collected twice, before the intervention and in the third month, using validated scales and a shock management simulation via the mobile training program (M-ICDEP). M-ICDEP included three sections: an educational section, a two-page summary, and a shock management simulation. All sections were shared with the intervention group. After the pre-test, intervention group patients could log in to M-ICDEP anytime using thei
• Other Only a two-page summary section of M-ICDEP
  The study had three phases: pre-test, implementation, and post-test. Data were collected twice, before the intervention and in the third month, using validated scales and a shock management simulation via the mobile training program (M-ICDEP). M-ICDEP included three sections: an educational section, a two-page summary, and a shock management simulation. Only a two-page summary section were shared with the control group. After the pre-test, control group patients could log in to M-ICDEP anytime u

Primary outcome measures

• Shock anxiety level [Time frame: three month]
• The device acceptance levels [Time frame: three month]
• Self-efficacy and outcome expectation levels [Time frame: three month]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

• Having an ICD implant
• Being able to read and write
• Being 18 years of age or older
• Not having a cognitive or communication disability
• Not having a diagnosed psychiatric disease
• Not having a generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7 test score <8)\*
• Not having a vision problem to the extent that it prevents the use of technological devices
• Having the knowledge and skills to use technological devices
• Having a smartphone that runs on the Android operating system and has internet access
• Agreeing to participate in the study

Exclusion criteria

• Patient not continuing after the second telephone follow-up phase of the study
• Not using the mobile application regularly (frequency of use monitored by the application)

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: No

Study design

Allocation

Randomized

Model

Parallel assignment

Masking

Single blind

Primary purpose

Supportive care

Study locations

Turkey (Türkiye) · 1 center

• Akdeniz University — Antalya

Publications

• Zipes DP. First conclusive evidence that the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reduces total mortality compared with drugs. Heart Rhythm. 2024 Jan;21(1):4-5. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.09.025. No abstract available. PMID 38176770
• Wilson MH, Engelke MK, Sears SF, Swanson M, Neil JA. Disease-specific quality of life-patient acceptance: racial and gender differences in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013 May-Jun;28(3):285-93. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0b013e31824e072e. PMID 22580627
• Tsuji Y, Heijman J, Nattel S, Dobrev D. Electrical storm: recent pathophysiological insights and therapeutic consequences. Basic Res Cardiol. 2013 Mar;108(2):336. doi: 10.1007/s00395-013-0336-2. Epub 2013 Feb 21. PMID 23429935
• Steiner JM, Bernacki G, Kirkpatrick J. My guardian angel: patients' fears and desires related to discussing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator deactivation. Heart. 2020 Feb;106(3):168-169. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315935. Epub 2019 Oct 31. No abstract available. PMID 31672781
• Sportsman S, Schumacker RE, Hamilton P. Evaluating the impact of scenario-based high-fidelity patient simulation on academic metrics of student success. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2011 Jul-Aug;32(4):259-65. doi: 10.5480/1536-5026-32.4.259. PMID 21923008
• Sears SF, Matchett M, Conti JB. Effective management of ICD patient psychosocial issues and patient critical events. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009 Nov;20(11):1297-304. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2009.01526.x. Epub 2009 Jun 26. PMID 19563356
• Pavia S, Wilkoff B. The management of surgical complications of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2001 Jan;16(1):66-71. doi: 10.1097/00001573-200101000-00010. PMID 11124721
• Morken IM, Bru E, Norekval TM, Larsen AI, Idsoe T, Karlsen B. Perceived support from healthcare professionals, shock anxiety and post-traumatic stress in implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients. J Clin Nurs. 2014 Feb;23(3-4):450-60. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12200. Epub 2013 Sep 17. PMID 24102743

Identifiers

NCT: NCT06935526 · 527 · 2024.7

Primary sources (government registries)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (US NIH)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗