A study protocol of a randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of a symptom self-management programme for people with acute myocardial infarction

Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers

Neurosciences and neurotechnologies (from now on called neuro-advancements) constantly evolve and influence all facets of society. Neuroethics and neuro-governance discourses focus on the impact of neuro-advancements on individuals and society, and stakeholder involvement is identified as an important aspect of being able to deal with such an impact. Nurses engage with neuro-advancements within their occupation, including neuro-linked assistive technologies, such as brain-computer interfaces, cochlear implants, and virtual reality. The role of nurses is multifaceted and includes being providers of clinical and other health services, educators, advocates for their field and their clients, including disabled people, researchers, and influencers of policy discourses. Nurses have a stake in how neuro-advancements are governed, therefore, being influencers of neuroethics and neuro-governance discourses should be one of these roles. Lifelong learning and professional development could be one mechanism to increase the knowledge of nurses about ethical, social, and legal issues linked to neuro-advancements, which in turn, would allow nurses to provide meaningful input towards neuro-advancement discussions. Disabled people are often the recipients of neuro-advancements and are clients of nurses, therefore, they have a stake in the way nurses interact with neuro-advancements and influence the sociotechnical context of neuro-advancements, which include neuro-linked assistive devices. We performed a scoping review to investigate the role of narrative around nurses in relation to neuro-advancements within academic literature and newspapers. We found minimal engagement with the role of nurses outside of clinical services. No article raised the issue of nurses having to be involved in neuro-ethics and neuro-governance discussions or how lifelong learning could be used to gain that competency. Few articles used the term assistive technology or assistive device and no article covered the engagement of nurses with disabled people within a socio-technical context. We submit that the role narrative falls short of what is expected from nurses and shows shortcomings at the intersection of nurses, socio-technical approaches to neuro-assistive technologies and other neuro-advancements and people with disabilities. Neuro-governance and neuroethic discourses could be a useful way for nurses and disabled people to co-shape the socio-technical context of neuro-advancements, including neuro-assistive technologies. Lifelong learning initiatives should be put in place to provide the knowledge necessary for nurses to take part in the neuroethics and neuro-governance discussion.

Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and improve prognosis. Cardiac rehabilitation is a complex multifaceted intervention which aims to improve the health outcomes of people with CHD. Cardiac rehabilitation consists of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011, which aims to investigate the specific impact of the educational component of cardiac rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effects of patient education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.2. To explore the potential study level predictors of the effects of patient education in patients with CHD (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event).

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) in June 2016. Three trials registries, previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

1. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary interventional intent was education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation.2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.3. Adults with a diagnosis of CHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion criteria. One author extracted study characteristics from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. Two independent reviewers extracted outcome data onto a standardised collection form. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. Heterogeneity amongst included studies was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. Where appropriate and possible, results from included studies were combined for each outcome to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. Given the degree of clinical heterogeneity seen in participant selection, interventions and comparators across studies, we decided it was appropriate to pool studies using random-effects modelling. We planned to undertake subgroup analysis and stratified meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression to examine potential treatment effect modifiers. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to create summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included a total of 22 trials which randomised 76,864 people with CHD to an education intervention or a 'no education' comparator. Nine new trials (8215 people) were included for this update. We judged most included studies as low risk of bias across most domains. Educational 'dose' ranged from one 40 minute face-to-face session plus a 15 minute follow-up call, to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups received usual medical care, typically consisting of referral to an outpatient cardiologist, primary care physician, or both.We found evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on total mortality (13 studies, 10,075 participants; 189/5187 (3.6%) versus 222/4888 (4.6%); random effects risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.05; moderate quality evidence). Individual causes of mortality were reported rarely, and we were unable to report separate results for cardiovascular mortality or non-cardiovascular mortality. There was evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on fatal and/or non fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (2 studies, 209 participants; 7/107 (6.5%) versus 12/102 (11.8%); random effects RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; very low quality of evidence). However, there was some evidence of a reduction with education in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events (2 studies, 310 studies; 21/152 (13.8%) versus 61/158 (38.6%); random effects RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference in effect of education on the rate of total revascularisations (3 studies, 456 participants; 5/228 (2.2%) versus 8/228 (3.5%); random effects RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71; very low quality evidence) or hospitalisations (5 studies, 14,849 participants; 656/10048 (6.5%) versus 381/4801 (7.9%); random effects RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; very low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference between groups for all cause withdrawal (17 studies, 10,972 participants; 525/5632 (9.3%) versus 493/5340 (9.2%); random effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; low quality evidence). Although some health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no reduction in total mortality, in people who received education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared to people in control groups (moderate quality evidence). There were no improvements in fatal or non fatal MI, total revascularisations or hospitalisations, with education. There was some evidence of a reduction in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events with education, but this was based on only two studies. There was also some evidence to suggest that education-based interventions may improve HRQoL. Our findings are supportive of current national and international clinical guidelines that cardiac rehabilitation for people with CHD should be comprehensive and include educational interventions together with exercise and psychological therapy. Further definitive research into education interventions for people with CHD is needed.