OBJECTIVE: The present paper reviews theories of social support and evidence for the role of social support in the development and progression of coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Articles for the primary review of social support as a risk factor were identified with MEDLINE (1966-2004) and PsychINFO (1872-2004). Reviews of bibliographies also were used to identify relevant articles. RESULTS: In general, evidence suggests that low social support confers a risk of 1.5 to 2.0 in both healthy populations and in patients with established CHD. However, there is substantial variability in the manner in which social support is conceptualized and measured. In addition, few studies have simultaneously compared differing types of support. CONCLUSIONS: Although low levels of support are associated with increased risk for CHD events, it is not clear what types of support are most associated with clinical outcomes in healthy persons and CHD patients. The development of a consensus in the conceptualization and measurement of social support is needed to examine which types of support are most likely to be associated with adverse CHD outcomes. There also is little evidence that improving low social support reduces CHD events.
OBJECTIVE: The present paper reviews theories of social support and evidence for the role of social support in the development and progression of coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Articles for the primary review of social support as a risk factor were identified with MEDLINE (1966-2004) and PsychINFO (1872-2004). Reviews of bibliographies also were used to identify relevant articles. RESULTS: In general, evidence suggests that low social support confers a risk of 1.5 to 2.0 in both healthy populations and in patients with established CHD. However, there is substantial variability in the manner in which social support is conceptualized and measured. In addition, few studies have simultaneously compared differing types of support. CONCLUSIONS: Although low levels of support are associated with increased risk for CHD events, it is not clear what types of support are most associated with clinical outcomes in healthy persons and CHD patients. The development of a consensus in the conceptualization and measurement of social support is needed to examine which types of support are most likely to be associated with adverse CHD outcomes. There also is little evidence that improving low social support reduces CHD events.
Authors: David M Dunkley; Deborah Schwartzman; Karl J Looper; John J Sigal; Andrena Pierre; Mark A Kotowycz Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2012-06
Authors: Rachel P Dreyer; Kumar Dharmarajan; Kevin F Kennedy; Philip G Jones; Viola Vaccarino; Karthik Murugiah; Sudhakar V Nuti; Kim G Smolderen; Donna M Buchanan; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carlos J Rodriguez; Matthew Allison; Martha L Daviglus; Carmen R Isasi; Colleen Keller; Enrique C Leira; Latha Palaniappan; Ileana L Piña; Sarah M Ramirez; Beatriz Rodriguez; Mario Sims Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anna Serlachius; Marko Elovainio; Markus Juonala; Steven Shea; Matthew Sabin; Terho Lehtimäki; Olli Raitakari; Liisa Keltikangas-Järvinen; Laura Pulkki-Råback Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2017-04
Authors: Ranak B Trivedi; James A Blumenthal; Christopher O'Connor; Kirkwood Adams; Alan Hinderliter; Carla Dupree; Kristy Johnson; Andrew Sherwood Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Warren D Taylor; Stephan Züchner; Douglas R McQuoid; David C Steffens; Dan G Blazer; K Ranga R Krishnan Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2008-10-05 Impact factor: 3.568