Thomas Mildestvedt1, Eivind Meland. 1. Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Section for General Practice, University of Bergen, Norway. thomas.mildestvedt@isf.uib.no
Abstract
AIMS: Those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and people with emotional problems have a poorer prognosis for cardiovascular disease. The authors wanted to examine: (1) what effect household income, emotional status, high-risk smoking status, and severity of heart disease had on the ability of individuals to make dietary and exercise improvements after heart disease and (2) to what extent unfavourable lifestyle outcomes among disadvantaged people were mediated by motivational problems. METHODS: A two-year follow-up study of the combined cohorts of a randomized controlled trial. Level of exercise and present dietary habits were measured at inclusion and after 6 and 24 months. Different motivational factors and emotional distress were measured during rehabilitation. RESULTS: Autonomous self-regulation was lowest among smokers (b = -0.31, p = 0.02) and female participants (b = 0.39, p = 0.004). Participants with high scores of emotional distress predicted lower motivation for all the measures. We found no association between socioeconomic status (household income) and the ability to perform lifestyle changes. Current smoking status predicted lower ability to obtain lifestyle changes on all measures. Emotional distress was related to lower ability to increase physical activity at 6 months' but not at 24 months' follow-up. The mediating effects of motivational factors were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study do not support the suspicion that preventive efforts accentuate the socioeconomic differences in cardiovascular health. Health-promotive efforts after heart disease should safeguard that high-risk groups such as smokers are not discouraged from improving their lifestyle in other areas.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and people with emotional problems have a poorer prognosis for cardiovascular disease. The authors wanted to examine: (1) what effect household income, emotional status, high-risk smoking status, and severity of heart disease had on the ability of individuals to make dietary and exercise improvements after heart disease and (2) to what extent unfavourable lifestyle outcomes among disadvantaged people were mediated by motivational problems. METHODS: A two-year follow-up study of the combined cohorts of a randomized controlled trial. Level of exercise and present dietary habits were measured at inclusion and after 6 and 24 months. Different motivational factors and emotional distress were measured during rehabilitation. RESULTS: Autonomous self-regulation was lowest among smokers (b = -0.31, p = 0.02) and female participants (b = 0.39, p = 0.004). Participants with high scores of emotional distress predicted lower motivation for all the measures. We found no association between socioeconomic status (household income) and the ability to perform lifestyle changes. Current smoking status predicted lower ability to obtain lifestyle changes on all measures. Emotional distress was related to lower ability to increase physical activity at 6 months' but not at 24 months' follow-up. The mediating effects of motivational factors were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study do not support the suspicion that preventive efforts accentuate the socioeconomic differences in cardiovascular health. Health-promotive efforts after heart disease should safeguard that high-risk groups such as smokers are not discouraged from improving their lifestyle in other areas.