Next Article in Journal
Myopia and Near Work: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
The Relationship between Predominant Polarity, Lifetime Comorbid Anxiety Disorders and Subjective Quality of Life among Individuals with Bipolar Disorder in Singapore
Previous Article in Journal
Potential Mechanism of Long-Term Immobilization of Pb/Cd by Layered Double Hydroxide Doped Chicken-Manure Biochar
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Association between Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety, Quality of Life, and Diabetic Kidney Disease among Chinese Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 1
10.3390/ijerph20010874
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quality of Life and Stress Levels in Patients under Home Mechanical Ventilation: What Can We Do to Improve Functioning Patients at Home? A Survey Study

by
Magdalena Kwiatosz-Muc
1,*,
Bożena Kopacz
2 and
Anna Fijałkowska-Nestorowicz
2
1
1st Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medical University of Lublin, Jaczewskiego Street 8, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Anaesthesiological and Intensive Care Nursing, Medical University of Lublin, Chodźki Street 7, 20-093 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(1), 874; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010874
Submission received: 17 November 2022 / Revised: 19 December 2022 / Accepted: 23 December 2022 / Published: 3 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quality of Life and Its Relationship with Mental and Physical Condition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Home mechanical ventilation (HMV) is becoming more widely available in many countries. Objectives: The aim of this study was to measure the health-related quality of life and stress levels of patients ventilated mechanically at home. The relation between quality of life and stress levels was investigated including multiple regression analysis. Methods: 100 patients treated with HMV in Poland were surveyed with the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). Results: 26% of patients assessed their quality of life as bad or very bad and 34% as good or very good. Stress levels measured with PSS-10 Scale were high level. For the group of patients with neurological disorders, stress levels were significantly higher than for the group of patients with pulmonological disorders. Conclusions: The higher the stress levels of patients, the lower the quality of life in particular domains. Improving the living conditions of HMV patients can influence improving their quality of life.

1. Background

Home mechanical ventilation (HMV) is currently becoming more widely available in many countries [1]. It is a complex and multidisciplinary treatment for patients with symptoms of chronic respiratory insufficiency due to pulmonary disorders, scoliosis or neuromuscular disorders. Treating these patients with home mechanical ventilation programs decreases the frequency of visits in emergency departments and hospitalizations in general [2].
An increasing number of patients included in HMV care have been under observation for many years [3,4,5,6]. Several studies have shown increased survival among patients undergoing this treatment [7]. Recent guidelines of a number of scientific associations recommend the use of home mechanical ventilation for patients with symptoms of chronic respiratory insufficiency [8,9,10,11,12]. HMV seems to improve health-related quality of life [13,14].
Patients ventilated mechanically at home are dependent on the correct functioning of medical equipment. Despite the fact that patients stay in their own environment, among relatives, they could suffer from a number of psychological phenomena such as anxiety, feelings of dependence, limitations in communication and stress [15]. The experiences of caregivers of patients undergoing HMV have been described in the literature [16,17] more widely than the experiences of the patients themselves [18,19,20] also in regard to health-related quality of life [21,22,23]. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a particularly important outcome of treating patients suffering from chronic diseases.
The aim of this study was to measure the health-related quality of life and stress levels of patients ventilated mechanically at home. The relation between quality of life and stress levels was also investigated as well as the regression model explaining quality of life.

2. Study and Methods

2.1. Sample Selection

The study was designed as unicentric questionnaire survey. Patients treated with HMV in the southeast of Poland, were invited to participate in the study in a non-random, consecutive and voluntary way. Only adult patients were invited to participate in the study with the length of HMV treatment between 6 months and 10 years. The Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Lublin approved the study. All participants gave their consent. A total of 125 surveys were distributed by the members of the research team to the caregivers of the patients in the period of 1 July 2017 to 28 February 2018. Surveys were left and completed without the presence of the member of therapeutic team. The survey in the envelope was taken at the next visit. Finally, the envelope with the survey was passed to the research team. The traditional form of a paper and pencil survey was used. Participants had no time limitation to fill out the surveys.

2.2. Methods

The World Health Organisation Quality of Life-BREF Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire was employed to measure health related quality of life and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) was used to assess stress levels. The relevant sociological and demographic data as well as medical history were surveyed by the authors.
The WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire is a universal research tool to investigate health-related quality of life [24]. It was adapted to Polish conditions by Wołowicka and Jaracz [25] and is recognized as a reliable tool to assess the quality of life of adult people [24,26,27,28]. The original questionnaire is available at the WHO website [29]. It is composed of 26 questions concerning four domains of life: somatic, psychological, social and environmental. In the somatic domain (DOM 1), everyday activities, dependency on treatment, energy, feeling of being tired, mobility, feeling discomfort, quality of rest and sleeping and the ability to work are assessed. In the psychological domain (DOM 2), one’s own reflections concerning their physical appearance, the presence and intensification of positive and negative feelings, self-assessment, spiritualism, religiosity, personal faith, thinking, learning and concentration are assessed. In the social domain (DOM 3), personal relations, the support of relatives and sexual activity are assessed. The environmental domain (DOM 4) assesses living and financial conditions, the availability and quality of medical services, the possibility of recreation, transport and one’s feeling of safety. There are two questions that are analysed separately: Question 1 concerns the general perception of quality of life (“How would you rate your quality of life?”) and question 2 concerns an individual’s perception of their own health (“How satisfied are you with your health?”). Answers for the questions are constructed on a 5-point Likert scale. Basic values in particular domains are transferred to a 0–100 scale following WHO guidelines [30].
PSS-10 is a simple research tool used to assess stress levels over the previous month [31,32]. It consists of 10 statements which refer to personal impressions of feeling troubled and ways of behaving in a difficult situation. The person examined agrees or disagrees with the statements on a 5-point scale. The final result of the scale is the sum of all points (up to 40). This sum is then converted into a 10-point standard sten score. Results from 1 to 3 sten scores are related to low levels of stress. Results between 7 and 10 sten scores are related to high levels of stress. Cronbach’s alpha for the Polish version of the PSS-10 Scale has a range from 0.72 to 0.92 [33].

2.3. Statistical Methods

The data were analysed statistically using the STATISTICA 13.3 program (Tibco Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA). Qualitative variables were characterized by multiplicity and percentage, while quantitative variables were characterized by basic classical statistical measures: mean and standard deviation. In the case of WHOQOL-BREF, as the manual suggests, there are minimum and maximum measures as well. The scope of minimal and maximal were given. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to examine the compliance of the distribution of features with the normal distribution. In order to examine the significance of the differences between the median values, parametric tests were used. The T-Student test was used to compare two autonomous trials, and mono-factor ANOVA variance analysis was used when comparing a larger number of means. The F test was used to verify the homogeneity of variances for two groups, and Levene’s test was preferred for more groups. The Rank U Mann–Whitney test was used to examine the significance of differences between two autonomous variables, and the Wilcoxon test for two related samples and the ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis test for a larger number of independent samples were used. Dependence analysis between two qualitative variables was based on Spearman’s coefficient (R) and the t test was used for the significance of this coefficient in the population. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used for the correlation between stress levels and quality of life measured with the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. The test of different significance levels between two structure indicators was used to compare differences between structure indicators (percent). Simple and multiple regression models in the group N explaining quality of life were developed. A p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

3. Results

The 125 surveys were distributed among HMV patients, and 100 correctly completed surveys were analysed (filled out in accordance with the instructions and containing no missing items). The mean age in the examined population was 66 (Q1–Q3; 57–72). The examined population included 71 (71%) patients with pulmonary diseases. Among these patients, 65 were diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 2 with bronchial asthma, 2 with apnea syndrome, 1 person with amyloidosis and 1 with pulmonary emphysema. Twenty-nine (29%) from the entire population examined had respiratory insufficiency due to neurological disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) (13 people), Duchenne’s dystrophy (DMD) (6 people), myasthenia gravis (4 people), sclerosis multiplex (SM) (2 people), cerebral palsy (2 people), central core disease (1 person) and Arnold–Chiarie Syndrome (1 person). The examined population was divided into two groups: group P comprised 71 patients with pulmonary diseases, and group N comprised of 29 patients with neuromuscular disorders. Twenty-nine patients from the examined population were treated with invasive ventilation (IV). Patients in the N group were significantly younger than patients in the P group (p < 0.001). The characteristics of the examined population are shown in detail in Table 1. Mean time of duration of HMV was 3.1 years in group N and 2.0 years in group P. There was no statistically significant difference in duration of ventilation between these groups (Table 2).

3.1. Quality of Life Assessed with WHOQOL-BREF

Twenty-six percent of patients in the entire population assessed their quality of life as bad or very bad. Thirty-four percent of patients in the entire population assessed their quality of life as good or very good, and forty percent of respondents assessed their general quality of life as ordinary. Fifty-eight percent of all respondents were not satisfied with their health status, seventeen percent were satisfied, and twenty-five percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their health status. Answers for question 1 of WHOQOL-BREF (concerning general perception of quality of life) and question 2 (individual’s perception of one’s own health) are detailed in Table 3. We can see that patients with neurological disorders assessed their quality of life as bad or very bad (p = 0.030) significantly more often than patients with pulmonological disorders. They were also significantly more often dissatisfied with their quality of life than patients with pulmonological disorders (p = 0.012). Patients with pulmonological disorders assessed their quality of life as ordinary (p = 0.0125) more often than patients with neurological disorders.
The results for the examined population in regard to the WHOQOL-BREF domains can be found in Table 4. The highest result was in the environmental domain, while the lowest was in the somatic domain. There are no statistically significant differences among domains between groups N and P. There is, however, a tendency for patients with pulmonological disorders (p = 0.090 < 0.1) to assess social relations (social domain) more positively than patients with neurological disorders (Table 4).
General quality of life (answers for question 1) and general health self-assessment (answers for question 2) in the examined population (n = 100) and their relation with chosen demographic features were examined. For age, sex, marital status, level of education and place of residence, no statistically significant relation was found. A statistically significant difference in assessing general quality of life (answers for question 1) between patients in different living conditions was found. The rank comparison multiple test for pairs of preferable groups shows only a tendency (p = 0.055) towards significant difference in satisfaction with health status (answers for question 2) between groups of patients living in very good conditions and those living in bad and very bad conditions.
Quality of life in the four domains in the examined population (n = 100) in relation to chosen demographic features was assessed. Men assessed their quality of life in the somatic domain more positively than women (p = 0.037). Married people assessed their quality of life in terms of social relations more positively than unmarried people (social domain, p = 0.035). Respondents in very good living conditions assessed their quality of life in the psychological dimension as better than respondents in bad and very bad living conditions. Respondents in very good living conditions assessed their quality of life in social terms better than respondents in worse (bad and very bad) living conditions. Concerning the environmental domain of the quality of life, statistically significant differences among groups of patients with different living conditions were discovered. Quality of life in particular domains in the examined population, depending on chosen demographic features, is shown in Table 5.
Chronbach’s coefficient for WHOQOL-BREF in our study was in total α = 0.918 (DOM 1 α = 0.740, DOM 2 α = 0.868, DOM 3 α = 0.601, DOM 4 α = 0.746).

3.2. Stress Level Assessment with PSS-10 Scale

Stress levels measured with the PSS-10 Scale were related to seven sten scores, which indicates high levels of stress. Chronbach’s coefficient for PSS-10 in our study was α = 0.86. For the group of patients with neurological disorders, stress levels measured with PSS-10 were significantly higher than for the group of patients with pulmonological disorders (Mann–Whitney U test, Z = 2.499, p = 0.012). However, the patients in the N group were significantly younger than patients in the P group (p < 0.001), no significant correlation between PSS-10 SUM and age was found.
The relation between perceived stress levels measured with the PSS-10 Scale and different demographical features was investigated. No statistically significant differences in stress levels in demographical feature groups were found (Table 6).
The relation between perceived stress levels, measured with the PSS-10 Scale, and quality of life, measured with WHOQOL-BREF, was analysed (Figure 1). Significantly strong negative correlations between PSS-10 and quality of life were observed in particular domains (Table 7).
Variance analysis to compare quality of life depending on stress levels was performed. It showed that stress levels influence the quality of life assessment in all domains. Patients with high stress levels (PSS-10 STEN ≥ 7) have significantly lower results in the quality of life assessment in the somatic, psychological and environmental domains than patients with lower stress levels. Concerning the social domain, patients with high stress levels tended to assess quality of life as lower than patients with average stress levels (Scheffe test, p = 0.059). Concerning the somatic domain, patients with average stress levels assessed their quality of life as significantly better than patients with low stress levels (Table 8).

3.3. Regression Analysis

The simple regression model was developed in the group of patients with neurological diseases. The model explains quality of life assessment in somatic domain (DOM 1) depending on perceived stress level in the PSS-10 Scale:
DOM 1 = −1.909 × PSSSUM + 85.771
The regression model explains 53% (R2 = 53%) of changes in quality of life assessment in the somatic domain in this group of patients. Relative estimation error in the somatic domain is 35.6%, which is at an acceptable level. The coefficient of −1.909 for variable PSSSUM indicates that the higher the perceived stress level, the lower the quality of life in the somatic domain in this group. If the PSSSUM goes higher by one unit, quality of life the in somatic domain goes down by 1.909 (Table 9).
In group N, the multiple regression model explaining quality of life assessment in the social domain (DOM 3) depending on perceived stress level in the PSS-10 Scale and living conditions of the patients may be developed:
DOM 3 = −1.321 × PSSSUM + 11.975 × LC − 1136.965
where LC means living conditions.
This regression model explains 73% (R2 = 73%) of changes in quality of life assessment in the social domain in group N. The relative estimation error in the social domain in this group based on stress level and living conditions is 14.7%, which shows the high precision of this estimation. When the perceived stress level is higher by one unit level for quality of life, then in the social domain the value is lower in this group by 1.321. Moreover, when the living conditions in the patient’s opinion are evaluated higher by one unit, then the quality of life in the social domain goes higher by 11.975 (Table 10). Perceived stress level has more influence than living conditions on the quality of life in the social domain in group N.
In group N simple regression model explaining quality of life (WHOQOL BREF SUM) depending on perceived stress level (PSSSUM):
WHOQOL BREF SUM = −2.034 × PSSSUM + 123.591
This regression model explains 59% (R2 = 59%) of changes of quality of life in this group. The relative estimation error for quality of life in group N based on perceived stress level is 14.7%, which shows the high precision of this estimation. When the perceived stress level is higher by one unit, then the quality of life assessment is lower by 2.034 (Table 11).
In group N, no sufficient regression model explaining assessment of quality of life in DOM 2 and DOM 4 was developed. In group P, a regression model sufficiently explaining quality of life in any of the domains was not possible to develop either.

4. Discussion

Patients ventilated mechanically in intensive care units (ICU) experience a number of negative psychological phenomena: vulnerability, anxiety, fear and loneliness [34]. Other patients describe suffering from emotional responses such a hopelessness, high level of frustration and stress [35]. Being dependent on health professionals without being able to communicate could be the cause of this phenomena [34]. A Swedish study based on interviews with mechanically ventilated patients in ICU shows that being dependent on other people and technical medical equipment for survival creates a sense of being delivered to the hands of personnel [36]. Having lines and tubes in one’s body was described as stressful [36]. Users of home mechanical ventilation encounter similar psychological challenges. HMV permits increased wellbeing of patients thanks to a home-based lifestyle compared with institutional-based treatment [37]. Nevertheless, HMV is related to a difficult life situation full of psychological, social and existential challenges [38]. HMV users are dependent on care givers and equipment. Some studies report that HMV users can find their health good, whereas healthcare professionals find the opposite [20,39]. Lindahl et al. suggest that HMV results in an increase in the user’s quality of life and normalization of their everyday life. Quality of life is improved in the physical and psychological dimensions [39]. On the other hand, HMV patients have the feeling of being trapped and describe constant feelings of fearfulness and worry. They find their homes have become institutionalized [39].
The quality of life of patients treated with HMV is rarely investigated and has not been examined in Poland. In this study, 40% of respondents assessed their quality of life as average. Thirty-four percent of interviewees assessed their quality of life as good or very good. Compared with a healthy population living in an industrial area in Poland, examined in a similar period of time with the same instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) by Szemik et al. [40], the quality of life of respondents in our study was much lower. The mean results in particular domains in the Szemik et al. study ranged from 62 to 75, depending on the domain. Healthy people had the highest results in social domains, while our respondents had the highest results in the environmental domain.
Kaub-Wittemer et al. [41] found that quality of life among SLA patients undergoing HMV was average. The Munich Quality of Life Dimensions List (MQLDL), used in the German study, investigates quality of life in four dimensions (psychological, social, physical and daily). In this study, patients had better quality of life in the social dimension than the patients in our study. Respondents in our study had higher quality of life in the environmental domain (which is equivalent to the daily dimension in MQLDL).
The present study showed that patients with neurological disorders assessed their quality of life in the social domain more positively than patients with pulmonological disorders (Table 4). This is different from other results, specifically Huttman et al. [22], who measured quality of life of HMV patients with the SRI Questionnaire (Severe Respiratory Insufficiency Questionnaire). This instrument measures the quality of life of patients in seven dimensions. Social functioning is equivalent to the social domain in WHOQOOL-BREF. In Huttman et al.’s study, the group of patients with neurological disorders showed lower quality of life in the social functioning dimension than patients with pulmonological disorders [22].
The seldom described experiences of patients undergoing HMV shows that this treatment causes distress and anxiety in patients’ lives [42] as they have a constant feeling of dependence. In Schaepe and Ewers’ study in Germany [43], one of the respondents described the total necessity of trusting one’s nurse, which reflects this high feeling of dependence. Similar feelings of patients concerning their caregivers were described in a Scottish study [44]. Difficulties in communication and the frustration with the loss of the possibility of speech is described as a relevant negative impression of HMV users [45]. In the present study, we focused on one aspect of the psychological functioning of the examined patients—stress levels. Data concerning stress levels in patients undergoing HMV are insufficient. High stress levels among patients in this study are, to some extent, coherent with the results of other studies, which describe feelings of uncertainty, distress and dependence on others.
Psychological stressors perceived by mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU are described as intensive care unit environmental factors such as dyspnea, fear, anxiety and pain. Patient education and sharing information may be helpful in reducing stress [46]. Some studies showed that listening to music may have beneficial effects on the anxiety of mechanically ventilated patients [47]. Music therapy can lead to relaxation and anxiety reduction in mechanically ventilated patients [48,49]. We did not investigate this aspect in the present study. Stress coping styles among HMV patients could be an area of interest in our future research. Investigating the resistance and resilience strategies, patient education and music therapy could be used to improve patients’ quality of life. It would be useful to further investigate the differences in possible different strategies for improving the quality of life of patients ventilated at home taking into consideration the special needs of both investigated groups in this study. This could be an area of future research as well.

5. Study Limitations

The study has several limitations.
Firstly, the number of patients recruited is relatively low. The process of recruiting patients to the study was not randomized and the respondents live in one region of the country. This could be a limitation to the generalization of the results.
Secondly, the group of patients with pulmonological disorders was significantly larger than the group of patients with neurological disorders. It is the result of sample selection. Patients were invited to participate in the study in a non-random, consecutive and voluntary way.
The group of patients with pulmonological disorders was also significantly older than the group of patients with neurological disorders. Stress level, however, is not correlated significantly with age, like quality of life, in particular domains. Similar differences in age between groups of patients divided by type of disorder have been observed by other authors [22].
Additionally: it is worth mentioning that only one method was used to measure quality of life as well as stress levels in the investigated groups. The quality of life and stress levels in HMV patients need further investigation with an alternative method. We have to remember that in every survey study, the results reflect the perceptions of the participants. It should be taken into consideration in formulating any conclusions in survey studies.

6. Conclusions

Patients with neurological disorders undergoing HMV assess their quality of life less positively than patients with pulmonological disorders undergoing HMV. Patients undergoing HMV, who declare worse living conditions, showed lower quality of life than patients in better living conditions. Improving the living conditions of these patients can improve their quality of life.
Patients with neurological disorders undergoing HMV have higher stress levels than patients with pulmonological disorders undergoing HMV. The higher the stress levels of patients are, the lower the quality of life in particular domains. The developed multiple regression model for patients with neurological disorders showed that when the perceived stress level is higher by one unit, then the level of quality of life in the social domain is lower in this group. Moreover, when the living conditions in the patient’s opinion are evaluated to be higher by one unit, then the quality of life in the social domain goes higher. However, the perceived stress level has more influence than living conditions on quality of life in the social domain in group N. Implementing psychological help services and stress prophylaxis could be part of improving the quality of life of HMV patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.-M., B.K. and A.F.-N.; Methodology, M.K.-M., B.K. and A.F.-N.; Software, M.K.-M.; Formal analysis, M.K.-M.; Investigation, M.K.-M. and B.K.; Data curation, B.K.; Writing—original draft, M.K.-M.; Writing—review & editing, M.K.-M., B.K. and A.F.-N.; Supervision, M.K.-M. and A.F.-N.; Project administration, M.K.-M., B.K. and A.F.-N.; Funding acquisition, M.K.-M. and A.F.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Medical University of Lublin grant number 548.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Lublin (KE-0254/211/2015).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, M.K.M., upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Povitz, M.; Rose, L.; Shariff, S.; Leonard, S.; Welk, B.; Jenkyn, K.B.; Leasa, D.J.; Gershon, A.S. Home Mechanical Ventilation: A 12-Year Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. Respir. Care 2018, 63, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Aboussouan, L.S.; Khan, S.U.; Meeker, D.P.; Stelmach, K.; Mitsumoto, H. Effect of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation on survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997, 127, 450–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Nasiłowski, J.; Wachulski, M.; Trznadel, W.; Andrzejewski, W.; Migdal, M.; Drozd, W.; Pytel, A.; Suchanke, R.; Czajkowska-Malinowska, M.; Majszyk, T.; et al. The evolution of home mechanical ventilation in poland between 2000 and 2010. Respir. Care 2015, 60, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Laub, M.; Berg, S.; Midgren, B. Swedish Society of Chest Medicine. Home mechanical ventilation in Sweden--inequalities within a homogenous health care system. Respir. Med. 2004, 98, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Chailleux, E.; Fauroux, B.; Binet, F.; Dautzenberg, B.; Polu, J.M. Predictors of survival in patients receiving domiciliary oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.: A 10-year analysis of ANTADIR Observatory. Chest 1996, 109, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Janssens, J.P.; Derivaz, S.; Breitenstein, E.; De Muralt, B.; Fitting, J.W.; Chevrolet, J.C.; Rochat, T. Changing patterns in long-term noninvasive ventilation: A 7-year prospective study in the Geneva Lake area. Chest 2003, 123, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bourke, S.C.; Tomlinson, M.; Williams, T.L.; Bullock, R.E.; Shaw, P.J.; Gibson, G.J. Effects of non-invasive ventilation on survival and quality of life in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2006, 5, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McKim, D.A.; Road, J.; Avendano, M.; Abdool, S.; Côté, F.; Duguid, N.; Fraser, J.; Maltais, F.; Morrison, D.L.; O’Connell, C.; et al. Home mechanical ventilation: A Canadian Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Can. Respir. J. 2011, 18, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Windisch, W.; Brambring, J.; Budweiser, S.; Dellweg, D.; Geiseler, J.; Gerhard, F.; Köhnlein, T.; Mellies, U.; Schönhofer, B.; Schucher, B.; et al. Nichtinvasive und invasive Beatmung als Therapie der chronischen respiratorischen Insuffizienz. S2-Leitlinie herausgegeben von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin e. V [Non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation for treatment of chronic respiratory failure. S2-Guidelines published by the German Medical Association of Pneumology and Ventilatory Support]. Pneumologie 2010, 64, 207–240. [Google Scholar]
  10. Windisch, W.; Dreher, M.; Geiseler, J.; Siemon, K.; Brambring, J.; Dellweg, D.; Grolle, B.; Hirschfeld, S.; Köhnlein, T.; Mellies, U.; et al. Nichtinvasive und invasive Beatmung als Therapie der chronischen respiratorischen Insuffizienz—Revision 2017 [Guidelines for Non-Invasive and Invasive Home Mechanical Ventilation for Treatment of Chronic Respiratory Failure—Update 2017]. Pneumologie 2017, 71, 722–795. [Google Scholar]
  11. Make, B.J.; Hill, N.S.; Goldberg, A.I.; Bach, J.R.; Criner, G.J.; Dunne, P.E.; Gilmartin, M.E.; Heffner, J.E.; Kacmarek, R.; Keens, T.G.; et al. Mechanical ventilation beyond the intensive care unit: Report of a consensus conference of the American College of Chest Physicians. Chest 1998, 113, 289S–344S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Piper, A.; Flunt, D.; Wark, P.; Murray, N.; Brillante, R.; Laks, L.; Dunford, M.; Ng, A.; Sandeman, N.; Reynolds, P.; et al. Domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in adult patients: A consensus statement. Available online: https://www.aci.health (accessed on 1 November 2020).
  13. Annane, D.; Orlikowski, D.; Chevret, S. Nocturnal mechanical ventilation for chronic hypoventilation in patients with neuromuscular and chest wall disorders. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 12, CD001941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lyall, R.A.; Donaldson, N.; Fleming, T.; Wood, C.; Newsom-Davis, I.; Polkey, M.I.; Leigh, P.N.; Moxham, J. A prospective study of quality of life in ALS patients treated with noninvasive ventilation. Neurology 2001, 57, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bertolotti, G.; Carone, M. From mechanical ventilation to home-care: The psychological approach. Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. 1994, 49, 537–540. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Evans, R.; Catapano, M.A.; Brooks, D.; Goldstein, R.S.; Avendano, M. Family caregiver perspectives on caring for ventilator-assisted individuals at home. Can. Respir. J. 2012, 19, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Tsara, V.; Serasli, E.; Voutsas, V.; Lazarides, V.; Christaki, P. Burden and coping strategies in families of patients under noninvasive home mechanical ventilation. Respiration 2006, 73, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ingadóttir, T.S.; Jonsdottir, H. Technological dependency—The experience of using home ventilators and long-term oxygen therapy: Patients’ and families’ perspective. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2006, 20, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Briscoe, W.P.; Woodgate, R.L. Sustaining self: The lived experience of transition to long-term ventilation. Qual. Health Res. 2010, 20, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ballangrud, R.; Bogsti, W.B.; Johansson, I.S. Clients’ experiences of living at home with a mechanical ventilator. J. Adv. Nurs. 2009, 65, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. López-Campos, J.L.; Failde, I.; Masa, J.F.; Benítez-Moya, J.M.; Barrot, E.; Ayerbe, R.; León-Jiménez, A. Factors related to quality of life in patients receiving home mechanical ventilation. Respir. Med. 2008, 102, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Huttmann, S.E.; Windisch, W.; Storre, J.H. Invasive home mechanical ventilation: Living conditions and health-related quality of life. Respiration 2015, 89, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Windisch, W. Quality of life in home mechanical ventilation study group. Impact of home mechanical ventilation on health-related quality of life. Eur. Respir. J. 2008, 32, 1328–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Skevington, S.M.; Lotfy, M.; O’Connell, K.A.; WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual. Life Res. 2004, 13, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jaracz, K.; Kalfoss, M.; Górna, K.; Baczyk, G. Quality of life in Polish respondents: Psychometric properties of the Polish WHOQOL-Bref. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2006, 20, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kowalska, M.; Skrzypek, M.; Danso, F.; Humeniuk, M. Ocena wiarygodności kwestionariusza whoqol-bref w badaniu jakości zycia dorosłych, aktywnych zawodowo mieszkańców aglomeracji górnoślaskiej [Assessment of reliability of the whoqol-bref questionnaire in a study of quality of life among adults, the economically active population of the Silesian agglomeration]. Przegl. Epidemiol. 2012, 66, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Akpa, O.M.; Fowobaje, K.R. The Factor Structure of the Adapted WHO Quality of Life BREF questionnaire in a sample of adolescents in Nigeria. Arch. Basic Appl. Med. 2018, 6, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  28. Meena, U.K.; Sen, R.K.; Behera, P.; Tripathy, S.K.; Aggrawal, S.; Rajoli, S.R. WHOQOL-BREF Hindi questionnaire: Quality of life assessment in acetabular fracture patients. Indian J. Orthop. 2015, 49, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Available online: https://www.wentylacjadomowa.pl/historia-wentylacji.html (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  30. World Health Organization. WHOQOL-BREF. Introduction, Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of the Assessment: Field Trial Version; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kwiatosz-Muc, M.; Fijałkowska-Nestorowicz, A.; Fijałkowska, M.; Aftyka, A.; Kowalczyk, M. Stress prevalence and stressors among anaesthesiology and intensive care unit workers: A multicentre survey study. Aust. Crit. Care Off. J. Confed. Aust. Crit. Care Nurses 2018, 31, 391–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kwiatosz-Muc, M.; Fijałkowska-Nestorowicz, A.; Fijałkowska, M.; Aftyka, A.; Pietras, P.; Kowalczyk, M. Stress coping styles among anaesthesiology and intensive care unit personnel—Links to the work environment and personal characteristics: A multicentre survey study. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2019, 33, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Juczyński, Z.; Ogińska-Bulik, N. Narzędzia Pomiaru Stresu i Radzenia Sobie ze Stresem. Narzędzia pomiaru Stresu i Radzenia Osbie ze Stresem. Tools for Measuring Stress and for Coping with Stress; Psychological Test Laboratory: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Baumgarten, M.; Poulsen, I. Patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in an ICU: A qualitative metasynthesis. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2015, 29, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Danielis, M.; Povoli, A.; Mattiussi, E.; Palese, A. Understanding patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta-synthesis and meta-summary. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 2107–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Engström, Å.; Nyström, N.; Sundelin, G.; Rattray, J. People’s experiences of being mechanically ventilated in an ICU: A qualitative study. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 2013, 29, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Nelißen, V.; Metzing, S.; Schnepp, W. [Experiences of Patients with Invasive and Non-Invasive Home Mechanical Ventilation—A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research]. Pneumologie 2018, 72, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ørtenblad, L.; Carstensen, K.; Væggemose, U.; Løvschall, C.; Sprehn, M.; Küchen, S.; Nørregaard, O.; Jensen, L.G. Users’ Experiences With Home Mechanical Ventilation: A Review of Qualitative Studies. Respir. Care 2019, 64, 1157–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Lindahl, B.; Sandman, P.-O.; Rasmussen, B.H. On being dependent on home mechanical ventilation: Depictions of patients’ experiences over time. Qual. Health Res. 2006, 16, 881–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Szemik, S.; Kowalska, M.; Kulik, H. Quality of Life and Health among People Living in an Industrial Area of Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kaub-Wittemer, D.; Steinbüchel, N.; Wasner, M.; Laier-Groeneveld, G.; Borasio, G.D. Quality of life and psychosocial issues in ventilated patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and their caregivers. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2003, 26, 890–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schaepe, C.; Ewers, M. ‘I need complete trust in nurses’—Home mechanical ventilated patients’ perceptions of safety. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2017, 31, 948–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. MacLaren, J.; Smith, P.; Rodgers, S.; Bateman, A.P.; Ramsay, P. A qualitative study of experiences of health and social care in home mechanical ventilation. Nurs. Open 2018, 6, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Laakso, K.; Markström, A.; Idvall, M.; Havstam, C.; Hartelius, L. Communication experience of individuals treated with home mechanical ventilation. Int. J. Lang Commun. Disord. 2011, 46, 686–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Thomas, L.A. Clinical management of stressors perceived by patients on mechanical ventilation. AACN Clin. Issues 2003, 14, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bradt, J.; Dileo, C. Music interventions for mechanically ventilated patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 2018, CD006902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Chlan, L.L. Music therapy as a nursing intervention for patients supported by mechanical ventilation. AACN Clin. Issues 2000, 11, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hunter, B.C.; Oliva, R.; Sahler, O.J.Z.; Gaisser, D.; Salipante, D.M.; Arezina, C.H. Music therapy as an adjunctive treatment in the management of stress for patients being weaned from mechanical ventilation. J. Music Ther. 2010, 47, 198–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Davis, T.; Jones, P. Music therapy: Decreasing anxiety in the ventilated patient: A review of the literature. Dimens. Crit. Care Nurs. 2012, 31, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 00874 g001 550
Figure 1. Mean WHOQOL BREF results with 95% of confidence interval in stress level groups.
Figure 1. Mean WHOQOL BREF results with 95% of confidence interval in stress level groups.
Ijerph 20 00874 g001
Table
Table 1. Groups characteristics.
Table 1. Groups characteristics.
VariablesN-Group
(n = 29)		P-Group
(n = 71)		Total
(n = 100)
n%n%N%
Type of ventilationNIV82763897171
IV21738112929
Gendermale206945636565
female93126373535
Marital statusmarried175947666464
unmarried124124343636
Place of livingurban196632455151
rural103439544949
Educationno/elementary113825353636
vocational62122312828
secondary/higher124124343636
Living conditionvery good51719272424
good227644626666
difficult278111010
Declared quality of life (question 1)good (4–5)113823323434
moderate (3)62134484040
bad (1–2)124114202626
AgeMeQ1–Q3MeQ1–Q3MeQ1–Q3
5238–596864–746657–72
NIV—not-invasive ventilation, IV—invasive ventilation, N-group—patients with neuromuscular disorders, P-group—patients with pulmonological disorders.
Table
Table 2. Duration of HMV by group.
Table 2. Duration of HMV by group.
Duration of HMV (Years)Test U Mann-Whitney
MSDMedianMin–MaxQ1–Q3ZP
GroupN (n = 29)3.12.91.90.5–11.01.5–3.31.4280.153
P (n = 71)2.01.51.80.3–8.00.9–2.5
Total2.32.11.80.3–11.00.9–2.7
N-group—patients with neuromuscular disorders, P-group—patients with pulmonological disorders, M—mean, SD—standard deviation, p—p-value for Mann–Whitney U.
Table
Table 3. Percentage of answers for question 1 and question 2 of WHOQOOL-BREF by patient group.
Table 3. Percentage of answers for question 1 and question 2 of WHOQOOL-BREF by patient group.
General Perception of Quality of Life (Q1)Very Bad
%		Bad
%		Not Good Nor bad
%		Good
%		Very Good
%
N172424287
P31748293
Indyvidual’s perception of health (Q2)Very unsatisfied Unsatisfied Not satisfied nor usatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
N273814147
P84630160
N—patients with neuromuscular disorders, P—patients with pulmonary diseases, Q1—question 1, Q2—question 2.
Table
Table 4. WHOQOL-BREF results in domains by group of patients.
Table 4. WHOQOL-BREF results in domains by group of patients.
Domains of
Quality of Life 		TotalN (n = 29)P
(n = 71)		F TestTest
MSDMSDMSDpP
DOM 144.2516.4341.1317.0645.5216.120.6830.227 (1)
DOM 249.6719.2250.2923.2549.4117.500.0580.838 (1)
DOM 352.4218.5947.4121.1454.4617.18-0.090 (2)
DOM 456.2213.7554.8512.9056.7814.130.6020.527 (1)
N—patients with neuromuscular disorders, P—patients with pulmonary diseases, DOM 1—somatic domain, DOM 2—psychological domain, DOM 3—social domain, DOM 4—environmental domain. (1) t-test, (2) Mann–Whitney U.
Table
Table 5. WHOQOL-BREF results in domains by chosen demographical features (N = 100).
Table 5. WHOQOL-BREF results in domains by chosen demographical features (N = 100).
Demographical VariablesnDomain
SomaticPsychologicalSocialEnvironmental
M ± SDpM ± SDpM ± SDpM ± SDp
Gender 0.037 * 0.645 0.631 0.233
Female3539.6 ± 15.5 48.5 ± 18.5 51.2 ± 17.3 55.1 ± 12.5
Male6546.8 ± 16.5 50.3 ± 19.7 53.1 ± 19.4 56.8 ± 14.4
Age 0.895 (2) 0.512 (2) 0.377 (2) 0.680 (2)
<60 years3143.8 ± 17.7 52.6 ± 20.8 51.9 ± 20.7 57.0 ± 14.2
60–69 years3343.4 ± 16.0 49.4 ± 15.5 56.3 ± 13.3 54.5 ± 12.8
≥70 years3545.2 ± 16.2 47.0 ± 21.2 50.2 ± 20.1 57.1 ± 14.6
Merital status 0.966 0.449 0.035 * 0.584
maried 6444.2 ± 16.4 48.6 ± 20.4 55.3 ± 18.1 56.8 ± 14.3
unmarried3644.3 ± 16.7 51.6 ± 17.1 47.2 ± 18.5 55.2 ± 12.8
Education 0.627 (2) 0.930 (2) 0.223 (2) 0.306 (2)
no/elementary3643.2 ± 15.9 50.6 ± 18.8 51.4 ± 17.3 54.9 ± 12.6
vocational2846.8 ± 15.3 49.6 ± 18.6 57.4 ± 14.4 54.2 ± 14.1
higher3643.4 ± 17.9 48.8 ± 20.6 49.5 ± 22.1 59.0 ± 14.5
Place of living 0.867 0.227 (1) 0.641 (1) 0.456
urban5144.0 ± 15.8 53.2 ± 20.2 53.1 ± 18.7 57.2 ± 13.4
rural4944.5 ± 17.2 46.0 ± 17.6 51.7 ± 18.6 55.2 ± 14.2
Living conditions 0.106 (3) 0.005(3) ** 0.013 (2)* <0.001 (2)***
very good2447.2 ± 15.8 58.3 ± 20.2 a 61.5 ± 17.3 a 66.1 ± 12.8 a
good6644.5 ± 17.3 48.0 ± 18.0 ab 50.4 ± 18.9 b 55.3 ± 11.7 b
difficult1035.7 ± 7.5 39.6 ± 18.8 b 44.2 ± 11.1 b 38.4 ± 7.2 c
M—mean, SD—standard deviation, p—p-value for t test/Mann–Whitney U (1)/ANOVA (2)/Kruskal–Wallis test (3); a,b,c—post hoc test designation (Scheffe for ANOVA, rank for Kruskal–Wallis); groups without common designation differ significantly; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 6. PSS SUM by chosen demographical features (n = 100).
Table 6. PSS SUM by chosen demographical features (n = 100).
Demographical VariablesPSS SUM
nM ± SDp
Gender 0.131
Female3522.4 ± 4.2
Male6520.6 ± 6.1
Age 0.227 (1)
<60 years3222.2 ± 5.0
60–69 years3320.5 ± 5.2
>=70 years3521.4 ± 6.0
Merital status 0.906
maried 6421.4 ± 5.7
Unmarried3620.8 ± 5.4
Education 0.882 (1)
no/elementary3621.2 ± 5.6
Vocational2821.3 ± 5.1
Higher3621.2 ± 6.0
Place of living 0.309
Urban5120.7 ± 5.1
Rural4921.8 ± 6.0
Living conditions 0.881 (1)
very good2420.5 ± 4.9
Good6621.3 ± 5.9
Difficult1022.6 ± 4.8
M—mean, SD—standard deviation, p—p-value for Mann–Whitney U test/Kruskal–Wallis test (1).
Table
Table 7. Spearman’s rank correlation between perceived stress level measured by PSS-10 and quality of life measured by WHOQOL-BREF.
Table 7. Spearman’s rank correlation between perceived stress level measured by PSS-10 and quality of life measured by WHOQOL-BREF.
Couple of Variables NRp
DOM 1 & PSS-10100–0.484<0.0001 **
DOM 2 & PSS-10100–0.452<0.0001 **
DOM 3 & PSS-10100–0.3380.0006 *
DOM 4 & PSS-10100–0.431<0.0001 **
DOM 1—somatic domain, DOM 2—psychological domain, DOM 3—social domain, DOM 4—environmental domain, R—Spearman’s coefficient. * p < 0.001, ** p < 0.0001.
Table
Table 8. Quality of life in particular domains of WHOQOL-BREF by groups of patients with different stress levels.
Table 8. Quality of life in particular domains of WHOQOL-BREF by groups of patients with different stress levels.
DomainSTRESS LEVEL (PSS-10)ANOVA
p
Low (1–3 sten)Medium (4–6 sten)High(7–10 sten)
MSDMSDMSD
DOM 167.9 a12.451.7 b12.940.0 c14.8<0.001 ***
DOM 263.5 a17.960.0 a13.045.8 b19.20.002 **
DOM 360.425.961.313.249.618.10.027 *
DOM 472.3 a9.462.9 a9.153.0 b13.4<0.001 ***
DOM 1—somatic domain, DOM 2—psychological domain, DOM 3—social domain, DOM 4—environmental domain, M—mean, SD—standard deviation, p—p-value for ANOVA; a,b,c—post hoc designation for Scheffe test; groups without common designation differ significantly. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 9. Regression analysis for dependent variable DOM-1 in Group N (n = 29).
Table 9. Regression analysis for dependent variable DOM-1 in Group N (n = 29).
VariablebSE bBetaSE Betat(27)P
Constant 85.7718.33310.2930
PSS SUM−0.7300.131−1.9090.344−5.5550
DOM 1—somatic domain, Group N—patients with neurological disorders, b—unstandardized regression weights, beta—standardized regression weights, SE—statistical error, F(1.27) = 30.854.
Table
Table 10. Multiple regression analysis for dependent variable DOM-4 in Group N (n = 29).
Table 10. Multiple regression analysis for dependent variable DOM-4 in Group N (n = 29).
VariablebSE bBetaSE Betat(26)p
Constant −1136.965278.186−4.070.000
PSS SUM−0.6690.103−1.3210.204−6.4910.000
Living conditions0.4540.10311.9752.7184.4050.000
DOM 4—environmental domain, Group N—patients with neurological disorders, b—unstandardized regression weights, beta—standardized regression weights, SE—statistical error, F(2.26) = 34.879.
Table
Table 11. Regression analysis for dependent variable WHOQOL BREF SUM in Group N (n = 29).
Table 11. Regression analysis for dependent variable WHOQOL BREF SUM in Group N (n = 29).
VariablebSE bBetaSE Betat(27)p
Constant 123.5917.83915.7660.000
PSS SUM−0.7710.123−2.0340.323−6.2910.000
Group N—patients with neurological disorders, b—unstandardized regression weights, beta—standardized regression weights, SE—statistical error, F(1.27) = 39.574.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kwiatosz-Muc, M.; Kopacz, B.; Fijałkowska-Nestorowicz, A. Quality of Life and Stress Levels in Patients under Home Mechanical Ventilation: What Can We Do to Improve Functioning Patients at Home? A Survey Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010874

AMA Style

Kwiatosz-Muc M, Kopacz B, Fijałkowska-Nestorowicz A. Quality of Life and Stress Levels in Patients under Home Mechanical Ventilation: What Can We Do to Improve Functioning Patients at Home? A Survey Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):874. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010874

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kwiatosz-Muc, Magdalena, Bożena Kopacz, and Anna Fijałkowska-Nestorowicz. 2023. "Quality of Life and Stress Levels in Patients under Home Mechanical Ventilation: What Can We Do to Improve Functioning Patients at Home? A Survey Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 874. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010874

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop