Skip to main content

Table 7 Group comparison regarding capability of PSP

From: A self-management support intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled pilot trial

Components of PSP

Rating

IG (n = 8) n (%)

UCG (n = 10) n (%)

RR (95% CI)

1) PSP in rest

Correct

5 (62.5)

4 (40.0)

1.6 (0.6–3.9)

Wrong

3 (37.5)

6 (60.0)

2) Use of a clock with second hand

Correct

6 (75.0)

3 (30.0)

2.5 (0.9–6.9)

Wrong

2 (25.0)

7 (70.0)

3) Location of measurement

Correct

6 (75.0)

4 (40.0)

1.8 (0.8–4.4)

Wrong

2 (25.0)

6 (60.0)

4) Technique of measurement

Correct

6 (75.0)

2 (20.0)

3.8 (1.0–13.8)

Wrong

2 (25.0)

8 (80.0)

5) Duration of the measurement

Correct

6 (75.0)

2 (20.0)

3.8 (1.0–13.8)

Wrong

2 (25.0)

8 (80.0)

6) Reporting determined value of the heart rate

Yes

5 (62.5)

4 (40.0)

1.6 (0.6–3.9)

No

3 (37.5)

6 (60.0)

7) Reporting determined value of the heart rhythm

Yes

4 (50.0)

0 (0.0)

6.0 (0.8–43.3)

No

4 (50.0)

10 (100.0)

8) Determined heart ratea

Correct

5 (62.5)

1 (11.1)

5.6 (0.8–38.5)

Wrong

3 (37.5)

8 (88.9)

9) Determined heart rhythma

Correct

4 (50.0)

0 (0.0)

5.5 (0.8–39.4)

Wrong

4 (50.0)

9 (100.0)

Overall PSP performance

Correct

4 (50.0)

0 (0.0)

6.0 (0.8–43.3)

Wrong

4 (50.0)

10 (100.0)

  1. IG intervention group, PSP pulse self-palpation, RR relative risk, UCG usual care group
  2. aOnly nine cases were analyzed in UCG because of missing values due to technical problems with the mobile ECG