0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      One or many labels? a longitudinal qualitative study of patients’ journey to diagnosis at a specialist NHS Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) clinic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) is a poorly understood syndrome of multiple disabling symptoms. This study explored the process of seeking a diagnosis of PoTS. Analysis focused on changes before and after participants’ first appointment with a national PoTS clinic, and explored whether a diagnosis is beneficial in the context of multiple co-occurring conditions and an absence of licenced treatments.

          Design

          A longitudinal, qualitative study.

          Methods

          Participants ( n = 15) in this nested qualitative study were recruited from a larger study of people who had been newly referred to a National specialist NHS Cardiology PoTS service. Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely before, and 6 months after their first appointment with the clinic. Data was analysed longitudinally and inductively using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

          Results

          Three overarching themes were identified: “Slowly moving forward and finding positive gains”, “Needing more pieces of the puzzle to see the bigger picture”, and “The value and impact of investigations”. Findings suggested that not much had changed in the 6 months between interviews. Participants were moving forward in terms of diagnoses, treatment and adjustment following their appointment, but many were still seeking further clarity and possible diagnoses. Investigations, appointments, and new-found problems, continued to have a substantial impact over time.

          Conclusions

          The journey to diagnosis for patients with suspected PoTS appeared to promote acceptance of self, and of limitations posed by symptoms. However, many participants continued their search for an explanation for every symptom experience, and this may become increasingly complex, the more labels that have been acquired. Lack of clarity contributed to ongoing difficulties for this patient group alongside fraught relations with health care professionals (HCPs). A more coherent, integrated approach which is communicated clearly to patients is recommended.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

          Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress.

            A 10-question screening scale of psychological distress and a six-question short-form scale embedded within the 10-question scale were developed for the redesigned US National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Initial pilot questions were administered in a US national mail survey (N = 1401). A reduced set of questions was subsequently administered in a US national telephone survey (N = 1574). The 10-question and six-question scales, which we refer to as the K10 and K6, were constructed from the reduced set of questions based on Item Response Theory models. The scales were subsequently validated in a two-stage clinical reappraisal survey (N = 1000 telephone screening interviews in the first stage followed by N = 153 face-to-face clinical interviews in the second stage that oversampled first-stage respondents who screened positive for emotional problems) in a local convenience sample. The second-stage sample was administered the screening scales along with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). The K6 was subsequently included in the 1997 (N = 36116) and 1998 (N = 32440) US National Health Interview Survey, while the K10 was included in the 1997 (N = 10641) Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Both the K10 and K6 have good precision in the 90th-99th percentile range of the population distribution (standard errors of standardized scores in the range 0.20-0.25) as well as consistent psychometric properties across major sociodemographic subsamples. The scales strongly discriminate between community cases and non-cases of DSM-IV/SCID disorders, with areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.87-0.88 for disorders having Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores of 0-70 and 0.95-0.96 for disorders having GAF scores of 0-50. The brevity, strong psychometric properties, and ability to discriminate DSM-IV cases from non-cases make the K10 and K6 attractive for use in general-purpose health surveys. The scales are already being used in annual government health surveys in the US and Canada as well as in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Routine inclusion of either the K10 or K6 in clinical studies would create an important, and heretofore missing, crosswalk between community and clinical epidemiology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              2015 heart rhythm society expert consensus statement on the diagnosis and treatment of postural tachycardia syndrome, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and vasovagal syncope.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Investigation
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                10 July 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 7
                : e0302723
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute of Psychiatry, Health Psychology Section, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ] School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Cardiology Department, King’s College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
                University of Ghana College of Humanities, GHANA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7610-1719
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7868-2804
                Article
                PONE-D-24-02451
                10.1371/journal.pone.0302723
                11236186
                38985772
                b2d13d4f-5019-4ac6-8151-97a723e35032
                © 2024 Knoop et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 18 January 2024
                : 10 April 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 19
                Funding
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Cardiology
                Heart Rate
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Cardiology
                Heart Rate
                Tachycardia
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Qualitative Studies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Psychological and Psychosocial Issues
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Patients
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Renal System
                Bladder
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Renal System
                Bladder
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data, the code book and interview citations, are available within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article