Peer-mentor support for older vulnerable myocardial infarction patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation: single-arm feasibility study

Maria Pedersen, Birgitte Bennich, Takyiwa Boateng, Anne Marie Beck, Kirstine Sibilitz, Ingelise Andersen, Dorthe Overgaard, Maria Pedersen, Birgitte Bennich, Takyiwa Boateng, Anne Marie Beck, Kirstine Sibilitz, Ingelise Andersen, Dorthe Overgaard

Abstract

Background: The positive effects of cardiac rehabilitation are well established. However, it has an inherent challenge, namely the low attendance rate among older vulnerable patients, which illustrates the need for effective interventions. Peer mentoring is a low-cost intervention that has the potential to improve cardiac rehabilitation attendance and improve physical and psychological outcomes among older patients. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-mentor intervention among older vulnerable myocardial infarction patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation.

Methods: The study was conducted as a single-arm feasibility study and designed as a mixed methods intervention study. Patients admitted to a university hospital in Denmark between September 2020 and December 2020 received a 24-week peer-mentor intervention. The feasibility of the intervention was evaluated based on five criteria by Orsmond and Cohn: (a) recruitment capability, (b) data-collection procedures, (c) intervention acceptability, (d) available resources, and (e) participant responses to the intervention. Data were collected through self-administrated questionnaires, closed-ended telephone interviews, semi-structured interviews, and document sheets.

Results: Twenty patients were offered the peer-mentor intervention. The intervention proved feasible, with a low dropout rate and high acceptability. However, the original inclusion criteria only involved vulnerable women, and this proved not to be feasible, and were therefore revised to also include vulnerable male patients. Peer mentors (n = 17) were monitored during the intervention period, and the findings indicate that their mentoring role did not cause any harm. The peer-mentor intervention showed signs of effectiveness, as a high rate of cardiac rehabilitation attendance was achieved among patients. Quality of life also increased among patients. This was the case for emotional, physical, and global quality of life measures at 24-week follow-up.

Conclusion: The peer-mentor intervention is a feasible and acceptable intervention that holds the potential to increase both cardiac rehabilitation attendance and quality of life in older vulnerable patients. This finding paves the way for peer-mentor interventions to be tested in randomized controlled trials, with a view toward reducing inequality in cardiac rehabilitation attendance. However, some of the original study procedures were not feasible, and as such was revised.

Trial registration: The feasibility study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT04507529 ), August 11, 2020.

Keywords: Cardiothoracic nursing; Coronary heart disease; Inequalities in health; Lifestyle; Mentors; Patient participation; Patient perspectives; Quality of life; Rehabilitation; Self-efficacy.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Feasibility study outcomes. Overview of feasibility methods and outcomes, guided by Orsmond and Cohns (2015). The distinctive features of a feasibility study: objectives and guiding questions
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Data-collection time points. Overview of data collected at baseline (T0), 12 weeks (T1), 14–17 weeks (time between T1 and T2), and 24 weeks (T2)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Example of theme development. Illustration of how overarching themes were developed from themes, subthemes, and examples of patient quotes
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Flowchart of inclusion mentees. Flowchart of eligible mentees, number included, dropout (number and reasons), and number completed at 12- and 24-week follow-up
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Flowchart of inclusion peer mentors. Flowchart of eligible peer mentors, number included, dropout (number and reasons), and number completing peer-mentor training

References

    1. Anderson L, Thompson DR, Oldridge N, Zwisler AD, Rees K, Martin N, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:CD001800.
    1. Schopfer DW, Forman DE. Cardiac rehabilitation in older adults. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(9):1088–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.03.003.
    1. Pedersen M, Egerod I, Overgaard D, Baastrup M, Andersen I. Social inequality in phase II cardiac rehabilitation attendance: the impact of potential mediators. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2018;17(4):345–355. doi: 10.1177/1474515117746011.
    1. Ruano-Ravina A, Pena-Gil C, Abu-Assi E, Raposeiras S, van’t Hof A, Meindersma E, et al. Participation and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation programs. A systematic review. Int J Cardiol. 2016;223:436–443. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.120.
    1. Pedersen M, Støier L, Egerod I, Overgaard D. Mastery of everyday life and social support needs in older vulnerable women with myocardial infarction and their relatives: a qualitative study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2021. 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab014.
    1. Parry M, Watt-Watson J. Peer support intervention trials for individuals with heart disease: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;9(1):57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2009.10.002.
    1. Pfeiffer PN, Heisler M, Piette JD, Rogers MA, Valenstein M. Efficacy of peer support interventions for depression: a meta-analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2011;33(1):29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.10.002.
    1. Nørskov K, Overgaard D, Boesen J, Struer A, El-Azem S, Tolver A, et al. Patient ambassador support in newly diagnosed patients with acute leukemia during treatment: a feasibility study. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(6):3077–3089. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05819-w.
    1. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2018.
    1. Orsmond GI, Cohn ES. The distinctive features of a feasibility study: objectives and guiding questions. OTJR Occup Particip Heal. 2015;35(3):169–177. doi: 10.1177/1539449215578649.
    1. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2(1) Available from: [cited 13 Apr 2021].
    1. Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat. 2005;4(4):287–291. doi: 10.1002/pst.185.
    1. Riegel B, Carlson B. Is individual peer support a promising intervention for persons with heart failure? J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004;19(3):174–183. doi: 10.1097/00005082-200405000-00006.
    1. Ichikawa M, Hosono A, Tamai Y, Watanabe M, Shibata K, Tsujimura S, et al. Handling missing data in an FFQ: multiple imputation and nutrient intake estimates. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(8):1351–1360. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019000168.
    1. Parr CL, Hjartåker A, Scheel I, Lund E, Laake P, Veierød MB. Comparing methods for handling missing values in food-frequency questionnaires and proposing k nearest neighbours imputation: effects on dietary intake in the Norwegian Women and Cancer study (NOWAC) Public Health Nutr. 2008;11(4):361–370. doi: 10.1017/S1368980007000365.
    1. Crutzen R, Viechtbauer W, Spigt M, Kotz D. Differential attrition in health behaviour change trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Health. 2015;30(1):122–134. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2014.953526.
    1. Kayaniyil S, Leung YW, Suskin N, Stewart DE, Grace SL. Concordance of self- and program-reported rates of cardiac rehabilitation referral, enrollment and participation. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25(4):e96–e99. doi: 10.1016/S0828-282X(09)70063-7.
    1. Oldridge N, Hofer S, McGee H, Conroy R, Doyle F, Saner H, et al. The HeartQoL: part II. Validation of a new core health-related quality of life questionnaire for patients with ischemic heart disease. Eur. J Prev Cardiol. 2014;21(1):98–106. doi: 10.1177/2047487312450545.
    1. Grønset C, Thygesen L, Berg S, Zangger G, Kristensen M, Sibilitz K, et al. Measuring HRQoL following heart valve surgery: the HeartQoL questionnaire is a valid and reliable core heart disease instrument. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(5):1245–1253. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-02098-1.
    1. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio causal and control beliefs. Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1995. p. 35.
    1. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol. 2005;139(5):439–457. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.
    1. Christensen A, Dixon J, Juel K, Ekholm O, Rasmussen T, Borregaard B, et al. Psychometric properties of the Danish Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with cardiac disease: results from the DenHeart survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1) Available from: [cited 26 Jul 2021].
    1. Kristensen M, Dieperink K, Rossau H, Egholm C, Viggers L, Bertelsen B, et al. Dietary interventions in cardiac rehabilitation - the gap between guidelines and clinical practice. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2018;27:120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.05.007.
    1. Laursen UB, Rosenkilde LB, Haugaard A-M, Obel T, Toft U, Larsen ML, et al. Validation of the HeartDiet questionnaire. Dan Med J. 2018;65(11):5514.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(6):554–561. doi: 10.1370/afm.1865.
    1. Ruparelia N, Panoulas V. The missing acute coronary syndromes in the COVID-19 era. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;14 Available from: [cited 20 Jul 2021].
    1. Smallheer BA, Dietrich MS. Social support, self-efficacy, and helplessness following myocardial infarctions. Crit Care Nurs Q. 2019;42(3):246–255. doi: 10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000265.
    1. Rasmussen T, Palm P, Herning M, Christensen A, Borregaard B, Nielsen K, et al. Subgroup differences and determinants of patient-reported mental and physical health in patients with ischemic heart disease: results from the DenHeart study. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019;34(4):E11–E21. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000583.
    1. Chagué F, Boulin M, Eicher J, Bichat F, Saint Jalmes M, Cransac-Miet A, et al. Impact of lockdown on patients with congestive heart failure during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. ESC Hear Fail. 2020;7(6):4420–4423. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13016.
    1. Ebrahimi H, Abbasi A, Bagheri H, Basirinezhad M, Shakeri S, Mohammadpourhodki R. The role of peer support education model on the quality of life and self-care behaviors of patients with myocardial infarction. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(1):130–135. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.002.
    1. Siercke M, Jørgensen L, Missel M, Thygesen L, Møller S, Sillesen H, et al. Cardiovascular rehabilitation increases walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication. Results of the CIPIC Rehab Study: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021; Available from: [cited 30 Sep 2021].
    1. Lincoln, Y., Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1985.
    1. Risom SS, Zwisler AD, Rasmussen TB, Sibilitz KL, Madsen TLS, Svendsen JH, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care for patients treated with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: results of the randomized CopenHeartRFA trial. Am Heart J. 2016;181:120–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2016.08.013.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren