Informal Health Support Research Articles

Should I stay or should I go? An exploration of the decision-making behaviour of acute cardiac patients during the Covid-19 pandemic

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Liverpool John Moores University Background The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in excess mortality. With efforts to reduce population movement and the spread of the disease, non-emergency patients are deterred from seeking help. Reduction in the number of patients presenting with acute cardiac conditions has dropped significantly, impacting initial and follow-up treatment. In a national survey, 71% reported they were afraid to visit hospital due to fear of being exposed to the virus, and 46% worried about putting pressure on the health service. Internet searches for chest pain symptoms increased following the announcement of lockdown and public health messages, suggesting an influence of government messaging on patient behaviour. Current work suggests that patients are turning to informal support networks to facilitate decision making, while more formalised networks are blocked. Purpose To qualitatively explore decision making of patients and their family members’ when faced with an acute cardiac event. This methodology provides insight into why patients made said decisions, and what factors influenced their decision making, during the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods A qualitative methodology was employed using purposive sampling of cardiac patients, who had attended hospital during a Covid-19 lockdown. Data was collected using semi-structured, digitally recorded, telephone or video call interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis. Results Twenty-four participants were recruited, from three sites throughout England. Three themes were generated from the study Reliance on informal support network, including disclosing their symptoms to family and friends, in turn leading to displaced or co-decision making. Secondly, a lack of awareness of cardiac symptoms leading to delayed help-seeking. Finally, an indirect Covid-19 effect, in which patients suggest that Covid-19 did not influence their decisions, yet a perception that their condition was non-urgent combined with a belief that GP services were limited resulted in delayed help-seeking Conclusions Patients have turned to informal health support networks, especially when the cause of symptoms are unknown. While the presence of Covid-19 is not explicitly noted as being influential, indirect effects are noted. Findings highlight the need for informed public health messages, that allow those in need of treatment to access care as and when they need.

Autonomy support from informal health supporters: links with self-care activities, healthcare engagement, metabolic outcomes, and cardiac risk among Veterans with type 2 diabetes.

This study examined the role of autonomy support from adults' informal health supporters (family or friends) in diabetes-specific health behaviors and health outcomes. Using baseline data from 239 Veterans with type 2 diabetes at risk of complications enrolled in behavioral trial, we examined associations between autonomy support from a support person and that support person's co-residence with the participant's diabetes self-care activities, patient activation, cardiometabolic measures, and predicted risk of a cardiac event. Autonomy support from supporters was associated with significantly increased adherence to healthy lifestyle behaviors (diet, p < .001 and exercise, p = .003); higher patient activation (p < .001); greater patient efficacy in interacting with healthcare providers, and lower 5-year (p = .044) and 10-year (p = .027) predicted cardiac risk. Autonomy support was not significantly associated with diabetes-specific behaviors (checking blood glucose, foot care, or medication taking); or hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, or non-HDL cholesterol. There was a significant interaction of autonomy support and supporter residence in one model such that lack of autonomy support was associated with lower patient activation only among individuals with in-home supporters. No other interactions were significant. Findings suggest that autonomy support from family and friends may play a role in patient self-management, patient activation, and lower cardiac risk.

Diabetes self-management and glycemic control: The role of autonomy support from informal health supporters.

Effective diabetes self-management can prevent long-term health complications but is often complex and difficult to achieve. Health care professionals' support for patients' autonomy (autonomy support) in managing their diabetes contributes to better diabetes self-care and glycemic control. Most adults with diabetes also receive self-management support from informal health supporters. Yet, the role of autonomy support from these informal health supporters has not been explored. We examined patients' perceived autonomy support from their main health supporter (family member or friend) in relation to their diabetes distress, self-efficacy, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), medication adherence, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Three hundred twenty-six veterans with Type 2 diabetes at high risk for complications, who identified a main health supporter, were surveyed using self-report measures of social support, diabetes distress, self-efficacy, and self-care. HbA1c and prescription fill data were extracted from VA electronic records for the 12-months before and after the survey. Linear regression and linear mixed models examined the associations of autonomy support with diabetes distress, self-efficacy, SMBG, medication adherence, and glycemic control, controlling for participant-supporter relationship characteristics and patient-factors. In adjusted models, greater autonomy support was associated with lower diabetes distress (B = -.323, SE = .098, p = .001), greater self-efficacy (B = .819, SE = .148, p < .001), more frequent SMBG (B = .297, SE = .082, p < .001), and better subsequent 12-month glycemic control (B = .257, SE = .085, p = .003) but not with medication adherence (B = .001, SE = .020, p = .994). Autonomy support from main health supporters is significantly associated better diabetes related attitudes, self-care, and glycemic control after adjusting for relationship and patient characteristics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Supplemental Material for Diabetes Self-Management and Glycemic Control: The Role of Autonomy Support From Informal Health Supporters

Supplemental Material for Diabetes Self-Management and Glycemic Control: The Role of Autonomy Support From Informal Health Supporters

Diabetes Distress and Glycemic Control: The Buffering Effect of Autonomy Support From Important Family Members and Friends.

To examine whether autonomy support (defined as social support for an individual's personal agency) for diabetes management from informal health supporters (family/friends) reduces the detrimental effects of diabetes distress on glycemic control. Three hundred eight veterans with type 2 diabetes and one or more risk factors for diabetes complications completed a survey that included measures of diabetes distress and perceived autonomy support from their main informal health supporter. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) data from 12 months before and after the survey were extracted from electronic medical records. Linear mixed modeling examined the main effects and interaction of autonomy support and diabetes distress on repeated measures of HbA1c over the 12 months after the survey, controlling for mean prior 12-month HbA1c, time, insulin use, age, and race/ethnicity. Diabetes distress (B = 0.12 [SE 0.05]; P = 0.023) was associated with higher and autonomy support (B = -0.16 [SE 0.07]; P = 0.032) with lower subsequent HbA1c levels. Autonomy support moderated the relationship between diabetes distress and HbA1c (B = -0.13 [SE 0.06]; P = 0.027). Greater diabetes distress was associated with higher HbA1c at low (B = 0.21 [SE 07]; P = 0.002) but not high (B = 0.01 [SE 0.07]; P = 0.890) levels of autonomy support. Autonomy support from main health supporters may contribute to better glycemic control by ameliorating the effects of diabetes distress. Interventions that reduce diabetes distress and enhance the autonomy supportiveness of informal supporters may be effective approaches to improving glycemic control.

Family Relationships, Social Support and Subjective Life Expectancy

Do supportive personal relationships increase subjective life expectancy? The objective existence of family relationships and the subjective sense of having someone to call on in need may increase the length of life a person expects by creating assurance about the future, by reinforcing healthy habits, and by improving current health. Using the 1995 Aging, Status, and Sense of Control representative sample of 2,037 Americans ages 18-95, we find that having adult children and surviving parents increases the length of life one expects, but young children in the home does not, and marriage only contributes years of life expected for older men. People expect to live longer when they report high levels of emotional support, and the association is mediated entirely by the perception that one has someone to call on when one is sick. People with informal health support expect to live longer than those without it, and this is especially true for persons with physical impairments. Although informal health practices shape subjective life expectancy, they explain little of the effects of supportive relationships. People who smoke, drink heavily, and have poor nutritional habits expect shorter lives, and those who walk and exercise expect longer lives. Better current health is associated with higher subjective life expectancy, but it does not explain the impact of supportive relationships. Most of the impact of supportive relationships appears to be a direct result of projected security about the future. Feeling that you have someone who would care for you if sick appears to increase the sense of security about surviving future health crises, thereby increasing one's perceived inventory of the essential property--life itself.