4.4 Article

Uncertainty in Patients With Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Undergoing Endovascular Surgery A Qualitative and Inductive Study

Journal

NURSING RESEARCH
Volume 63, Issue 5, Pages 366-374

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000050

Keywords

endovascular procedures; intracranial aneurysm; Japan; magnetic resonance angiography; uncertainty

Categories

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [24890253]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24890253] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Advances in diagnostic imaging technology have increased opportunities to discover unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA), and prior research has shown that UIA patients experience uncertainty both when making choices regarding treatment and after surgery. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to clarify the nature of the uncertainty experienced by UIA patients who elect to undergo endovascular surgery. Methods: Data from interviews with 31 subjects were synthesized with findings from previous research and then analyzed qualitatively and inductively. Results: Six categories were derived from the analysis to describe the uncertainty experienced by UIA patients who undergo intravascular surgery: Nature of the Disease, Treatment Characteristics, Information, Decision-making, Course of the Future, and Living with UIA. Discussion: The Treatment Characteristics and Decision-making categories reflect new aspects of uncertainty arising from advances in diagnostic imaging and appeared specific to patients with UIA. This suggests a need to select appropriate nursing methods adapted to the situation of each patient that can both reduce and manage their uncertainty. Developing an uncertainty scale for UIA patients based on the structural concepts clarified in this study and investigating reliability and validity of scores are topics for future research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available