Table 2.
Survey results and continuous variables.
| Variable | Scale | Patients with aortic dissection (n=27), mean (95% CI) | Relatives of patients with aortic dissection (n=8), mean (95% CI)a | Health professionals (n=6), mean (95% CI)a | All subjects (n=41), mean (95% CI) |
| Extent of agreement with “Patient would benefit from interventions” | 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) | 6 (5.57-6.4) |
6.63 (6.25-7) |
6.5 (6-7) |
6.2 (5.9-6.5) |
| Expected frequency of aortic dissection survivors that improve | Percentages | 66.7 (56.9-76.4) |
70 (53.8-85.5) |
75 | 68.6 (61.4-76.2) |
| Expected frequency of aortic dissection survivors that decline | Percentages | 5.5 (2.9-8.2) |
5 (5-5) |
4.2 | 5.2 (2.9-7.9) |
| Expected frequency of aortic dissection survivors with negative side effects | Percentages | 9.1 (3.4-16.4) |
0 | 0.8 | 5.7 (1.9-10.4) |
| Frequency of acquaintances receiving psychosocial treatment | Percentages | 2.2 (0-6.7) |
16.7 (0-50) |
35 | 12.5 (0.8-28.9) |
| Number of mentioned topics of aortic dissection survivors that need psychosocial attention per respondent | Absolute frequency | 5.9 (4.7-7.1) |
6.8 (5.6-8) |
5.5 | 6 (5.2-6.9) |
| Number of mentioned types of desired psychosocial interventions per respondent | Absolute frequency | 3.9 (3.1-4.8) |
3.5 (2.5-4.5) |
4.7 | 4 (3.3-4.7) |
a95% CI was calculated given sufficient sample size and distribution of values.