| Literature DB >> 25302122 |
Maria J C Blikman1, Hege R Jacobsen1, Geir Egil Eide2, Eivind Meland1.
Abstract
Purpose. To investigate the predictive role of relevant social and psychosocial determinants on emotional distress among patients after cardiac rehabilitation. Methods. A longitudinal prospective study examined short-term (6 months) and long-term (2 years) impact of predictors on anxiety and depression complaints in 183 patients with 6-months follow-up data attending a four-week rehabilitation stay at the Krokeide Centre in Bergen, Norway. The patients mainly suffered from coronary heart disease. Emotional distress, coping, social support, socioeconomic status, and negative expectations were measured by means of internationally validated questionnaires. A composite score of anxiety and depression complaints was used as the outcome measure in the study. Results. This study revealed that task-oriented coping improved emotional status in long-term followup, and negative expectations were associated with emotional distress in short-term followup. A higher socioeconomic status and more social support predicted improved emotional status in short- as well as long-term followup. Conclusions. Fewer negative expectations and functional coping along with social support are important factors for the prevention of emotional distress after cardiac disease. Such elements should be addressed and encouraged in patients during cardiac rehabilitation.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25302122 PMCID: PMC4180384 DOI: 10.1155/2014/973549
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rehabil Res Pract ISSN: 2090-2867
Baseline data on 183 patients with valid six-month data participating in a four-week cardiac rehabilitation programme at Krokeide Rehabilitation Centre, Bergen, Norway, from 2000 to 2002.
| Variables | Total | Missing | Cronbach's |
|---|---|---|---|
| Males, % ( | 80.3 (146) | 0 (0) | |
| Age in years, mean (SD) | 55.1 (9.2) | 0 (0) | |
| Married/cohabiting | |||
| Yes, % ( | 83.8 (151) | 1.6 (3) | |
| No, % ( | 16.2 (29) | ||
| Household income, mean (SD) | 3.5a (1.3) | 14.2 (26)b | |
| Social supportc, mean (SD) | 5.4 (0.9) | 0 (0) | 0.74 |
| Emotional statusd, mean (SD) | 3.0 (1.2) | 0 (0) | 0.88 |
| Copinge | |||
| Task, mean (SD) | 2.5 (0.4) | 0 (0) | 0.69 |
| Emotion, mean (SD) | 2.2 (0.3) | 0 (0) | 0.60 |
| Avoid, mean (SD) | 2.0 (0.4) | 0 (0) | 0.62 |
| Negative expectationsd, mean (SD) | 2.2 (1.0) | 0 (0) | 0.73 |
n: subsample size; SD: standard deviation.
a3.5 ≈ 400,000 NOK (70.000 USD) (scales 1–5: 3 = 301,000–400,000 NOK, 4 = 401,000–500,000 NOK).
bHousehold income data were obtained after conclusion of the study (at 24 months) and were completed for all participants with valid followup data.
cTotal mean score social support (scales 1–7).
dTotal mean score of anxiety and depression complaints (scales 1–7).
eTotal mean score coping style (scales 1–4).
Multiple linear regression of coping styles and other predictive factors on emotional status (anxiety and depression complaints) measured at short-term followup (6 months) at Krokeide Rehabilitation Centre, Bergen, Norway, included from 2000 to 2002.
| Variables |
| Adjusted modelsa | Final model ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 95% CI |
|
| 95% CI |
| ||
| Age (in years) | 0.26 | ||||||
| Gender (male/female) | 0.41 | (0.01, 0.82) | 0.04 | ||||
| Employed (yes/no) | 161 | 0.10 | (−0.36, 0.55) | 0.68 | 0.84 | ||
| Cohabiting (yes/no) | 180 | −0.82 | (−1.28, −0.36) | 0.001 | 0.31 | ||
| Household income | 157 | −0.34 | (−0.49, −0.20) | <0.001 | −0.21 | (−0.33, −0.08) | 0.001 |
| Coping style | |||||||
| Task | 183 | −0.58 | (−1.01, −0.14) | 0.01 | 0.16 | ||
| Emotion | 183 | 0.01 | (−0.41, 0.44) | 0.96 | 0.75 | ||
| Avoid | 183 | 0.57 | (0.14, 1.01) | 0.01 | 0.91 | ||
| Social support | 183 | −0.59 | (−0.76, −0.43) | <0.001 | −0.53 | (−0.72, −0.33) | <0.001 |
| Negative expectations | 183 | 0.50 | (0.33, 0.66) | <0.001 | 0.25 | (0.1, 0.4) | 0.01 |
| Intercept | 5.13 | (3.7, 6.6) | <0.001 | ||||
| Explained varianced ( | |||||||
| Nonadjusted | 0.36 | ||||||
| Adjusted | 0.34 | ||||||
n: subsample size; B: estimated regression coefficient; CI: confidence interval.
aEight models adjusted for age and gender.
bObtained by backward stepwise selection.
cThe nonsignificant P values were retrieved from the excluded variables table of the backward stepwise selection analysis.
d R 2 for final model.
Multiple linear regression of coping styles and other predictive factors on emotional status (anxiety and depression complaints) measured at long-term followup (24 months) at Krokeide Rehabilitation Centre, Bergen, Norway, included from 2002–2004.
| Variables |
| Adjusted modelsa | Final model ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 95% CI |
|
| 95% CI |
| ||
| Age (in years) | −0.03 | (0.05, 0.01) | 0.001 | ||||
| Gender (male/female) | 0.32 | (−0.06, 0.70) | 0.10 | ||||
| Employed (yes/no) | 173 | −0.02 | (−0.45, 0.41) | 0.92 | 0.17 | ||
| Cohabiting (yes/no) | 170 | −0.59 | (−1.05, −0.13) | 0.01 | 0.51 | ||
| Household income | 168 | −0.35 | (−0.48, −0.21) | <0.001 | −0.23 | (−0.36, −0.11) | <0.001 |
| Coping style | |||||||
| Task | 174 | −0.97 | (−1.40, −0.54) | <0.001 | −0.79 | (−1.22, −0.36) | <0.001 |
| Emotion | 174 | −0.16 | (−0.61, 0.28) | 0.47 | 0.23 | ||
| Avoid | 174 | 0.38 | (−0.07, 0.83) | <0.10 | 0.18 | ||
| Social support | 174 | −0.46 | (−0.64, −0.29) | <0.001 | −0.33 | (−0.52, −0.15) | 0.001 |
| Negative expectations | 174 | 0.36 | (0.19, 0.53) | <0.001 | 0.17 | (−0.01, 0.36) | 0.07 |
| Intercept | 7.95 | (6.02, 9.87) | <0.001 | ||||
| Explained varianced ( | |||||||
| Nonadjusted | 0.36 | ||||||
| Adjusted | 0.34 | ||||||
n: subsample size; B: estimated regression coefficient; CI: confidence interval.
aEight models adjusted for age and gender.
bObtained by backward stepwise selection.
cThe nonsignificant P values were retrieved from the excluded variables table of the backward stepwise selection analysis.
d R 2 for final model.