"Should WE Stand Together?": A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of family-based interventions for adults with chronic physical diseases

Family support has been identified as an important factor for the psychological adjustment of patients with chronic physical conditions. This study aimed to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of studies comparing the effectiveness of family-based versus patient-oriented interventions for chronic physical conditions. The search was performed between April 12 and April 29, 2021, on Web of Science (all databases included), Scopus, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL. Thirteen RCTs were included. The results favored family-based interventions for various patient outcomes related to pain, distress, self-efficacy, social and emotional function, coping, the welfare of the domestic environment, capacity to mobilize social support, and sexual relationships with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen's d range: 0.45-0.90). This type of intervention also decreased family members' anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and distress, improving search and presence of meaning in life, social support, the support provided to the patient, and sexual relationships with medium to very large effect sizes (Cohen's d range: 0.58-2.76). The meta-analytical findings suggested that the patients' (k = 12, d = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13-0.55, I²  = 74%, p < 0.01) and family members' (k = 4, d = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.08-1.27, I²  = 88%, p < 0.01) psychosocial outcomes significantly improved with family-based interventions compared with patient-oriented interventions. The meta-analysis of patients' self-efficacy showed a medium-size effect (d = 0.64; k = 3; I²  = 19%). The results suggest a trend toward the beneficial effects of family-based interventions, but more research is needed with higher quality RCTs to confirm this hypothesis.

Evaluation of feasibility and safety of changing body position after transfemoral angiography: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Considering the growing number of patients who suffer from cardiovascular and coronary artery disease and the significant importance of angiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, this study investigated the effects of position change on the acute complications of coronary angiography.

METHODS

This study was a randomized clinical trial. Sixty patients undergoing coronary angiography, which was performed by a single operator were selected by convenience sampling method and were assigned to intervention or control groups by randomized block design (30 cases in each group). Intervention group patients' position was changed according to schedule, whereas patients in the control group remained in the supine position in complete bed rest. At the entrance hours, 3, 6, 8, and 24 hours after the angiography, patients in both groups were evaluated in terms of vascular complications, urinary retention, low back pain, groin pain, and comfort. Data were analyzed by repeated measures, Friedman, Mann-Whitney, chi-square, independent t-test, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests with SPSS-22.

RESULTS

The two groups did not show any significant difference in terms of demographic, clinical, and preinterventional catheterization characteristics (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference with regard to vascular complications including hematoma (P = 0.149), bleeding (P > 0.01), bruise (P = 0.081), and thrombosis in the two groups of patients during 5 consecutive reviews. However, there was a significant statistical difference regarding low back pain (P < 0.001), groin pain (P < 0.001), urinary retention (P = 0.02), and comfort (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that changing the positions of patients after angiography based on the provided program created no change in the incidence of vascular complications (hematoma, bleeding, thrombosis, and bruise) but resulted in reduced severity of back pain, groin pain, urinary retention, and increased patients' comfort.