Supported by Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, and the Watson Outpatient Electrophysiology Clinic, Lakeland, FL.
Measuring Patient Acceptance of Implantable Cardiac Device Therapy:
Initial Psychometric Investigation of the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey
Version of Record online: 14 JAN 2005
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Volume 16, Issue 4, pages 384–390, April 2005
How to Cite
BURNS, J. L., SERBER, E. R., KEIM, S. and SEARS, S. F. (2005), Measuring Patient Acceptance of Implantable Cardiac Device Therapy:. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 16: 384–390. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2005.40134.x
Manuscript received 22 March 2004; Revised manuscript received 8 October 2004; Accepted for publication 12 October 2004.
- Issue online: 14 JAN 2005
- Version of Record online: 14 JAN 2005
- patient acceptance;
- implantable cardiac devices;
- quality of life;
- psychological adjustment
Introduction: Patient acceptance of implantable device therapy has been established as an important outcome but the operationalization and validation of a measure of patient acceptance of implantable device therapy has not been fully completed. This study sought to validate a new measure of patient acceptance of cardiac implantable devices called the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS).
Methods: The sample consisted of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD; n = 58), and implantable atrioverter defibrillator (ICD-AT; n = 96), and pacemaker (PM, n = 84) patients. Mean age of all participants was 69 years; they were mostly male (62%) and married (75%). The final FPAS comprised 15 items with four consistent factors: Return to Function, Device-Related Distress, Positive Appraisal, and Body Image Concerns.
Results: The total FPAS demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83), and internal consistency for each of the subscales ranged from 0.74 to 0.89. The FPAS demonstrated convergent, divergent, and discriminant validity when compared to other self-report measures of QOL, atrial symptoms, depression, and anxiety. A total FPAS score can be formed and between group comparisons with this sample indicated that ICD patients report a high level of acceptance (mean = 76), ICD-AT patients report a significantly higher level of acceptance (mean = 81.1), and PM patients reported the highest level of patient acceptance (mean = 85.4) of these implantable device groups.
Conclusion: This initial psychometric investigation of the FPAS suggests that the FPAS may be useful in both clinical and research settings to assess patient acceptance of implantable cardiac devices.