Cited by 23Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units

Development and preliminary evaluation of EMPOWER for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients

Open access
Lichtenthal, Wendy G., Viola, Martin, Rogers, Madeline, Roberts, Kailey E., Lief, Lindsay, Cox, Christopher E., Brewin, Chris R., Xu, Jiehui Cici +9 more·2022·Palliative and Supportive Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to develop and refine EMPOWER (Enhancing and Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness and Resilience), a brief manualized cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and promise in improving surrogates' mental health and patient outcomes. METHOD: Part 1 involved obtaining qualitative stakeholder feedback from 5 bereaved surrogates and 10 critical care and mental health clinicians. Stakeholders were provided with the manual and prompted for feedback on its content, format, and language. Feedback was organized and incorporated into the manual, which was then re-circulated until consensus. In Part 2, surrogates of critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) reporting moderate anxiety or close attachment were enrolled in an open trial of EMPOWER. Surrogates completed six, 15-20 min modules, totaling 1.5-2 h. Surrogates were administered measures of peritraumatic distress, experiential avoidance, prolonged grief, distress tolerance, anxiety, and depression at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS: Part 1 resulted in changes to the EMPOWER manual, including reducing jargon, improving navigability, making EMPOWER applicable for a range of illness scenarios, rearranging the modules, and adding further instructions and psychoeducation. Part 2 findings suggested that EMPOWER is feasible, with 100% of participants completing all modules. The acceptability of EMPOWER appeared strong, with high ratings of effectiveness and helpfulness (M = 8/10). Results showed immediate post-intervention improvements in anxiety (d = -0.41), peritraumatic distress (d = -0.24), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.23). At the 3-month follow-up assessments, surrogates exhibited improvements in prolonged grief symptoms (d = -0.94), depression (d = -0.23), anxiety (d = -0.29), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.30). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Preliminary data suggest that EMPOWER is feasible, acceptable, and associated with notable improvements in psychological symptoms among surrogates. Future research should examine EMPOWER with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1478951521000626

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lichtenthal, W. G., Viola, M., Rogers, M., Roberts, K. E., Lief, L., Cox, C. E., Brewin, C. R., Xu, J. C., Maciejewski, P. K., Pan, C. X., Coats, T., Ouyang, D. J., Rabin, S., Vaughan, S. C., Breitbart, W., Marenberg, M. E., & Prigerson, H. G.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • New York Hospital Queens (US)
  • Yeshiva University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Lichtenthal, Wendy G.
Venue
Palliative and Supportive Care
Published
2021-07-08
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
167-177
ISSN
  • 1478-9515 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-9523
OpenAlex
W3182934692
Cited by
23
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7
FWCI
3.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Palliative & Supportive Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K07CA172216, R21CA218313, P30CA008748, T32CA009461, R35CA197730)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Keywords
surrogate decision makers, critically ill patients, intensive care unit, bereavement, peritraumatic distress, prolonged grief disorder, experiential avoidance, anxiety, depression, cognitive-behavioral intervention, acceptance-based interventions, manual development, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Critical Care, Decision Making, Grief, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Critical Illness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review