BACKGROUND:Patients with coronary heart disease undergo cardiac rehabilitation in order to reduce their cardiovascular risk factors. Often, however, the benefit of rehabilitation is lost over time. It is unclear whether this happens in the same way to men and women. We studied whether the setting of gender-specific behavior goals with an agreement between the doctor and the patient at the end of rehabilitation can prolong its positive effects. METHODS: This study was performed with a mixed-method design. It consisted of qualitative interviews and group discussions with patients, doctors and other treating personnel, and researchers, as well as a quantitative, randomized, controlled intervention trial in which data were acquired at four time points (the beginning and end of rehabilitation and then 6 and 12 months later). 545 patients, 262 of them women (48.1%), were included. The patients were assigned to a goal checking group (n = 132), a goal setting group (n = 143), and a control group (n = 270). The primary endpoints were health-related behavior (exercise, diet, tobacco consumption), subjective state of health, and medication adherence. The secondary endpoints included physiological protection and risk factors such as blood pressure, cholesterol (HDL, LDL, and total), blood sugar, HbA1c, and body-mass index. RESULTS: The intervention had no demonstrable effect on the primary or secondary endpoints. The percentage of smokers declined to a similar extent in all groups from the beginning of rehabilitation to 12 months after its end (overall figures: 12.4% to 8.6%, p <0.05). The patients' exercise behavior, diet, and subjective state of health also improved over the entire course of the study. Women had a healthier diet than men. Subgroup analyses indicated a possible effect of the intervention on exercise behavior in women who were employed and in men who were not (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of goal setting was not demonstrated. Therefore, no indication for its routine provision can be derived from the study results.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patients with coronary heart disease undergo cardiac rehabilitation in order to reduce their cardiovascular risk factors. Often, however, the benefit of rehabilitation is lost over time. It is unclear whether this happens in the same way to men and women. We studied whether the setting of gender-specific behavior goals with an agreement between the doctor and the patient at the end of rehabilitation can prolong its positive effects. METHODS: This study was performed with a mixed-method design. It consisted of qualitative interviews and group discussions with patients, doctors and other treating personnel, and researchers, as well as a quantitative, randomized, controlled intervention trial in which data were acquired at four time points (the beginning and end of rehabilitation and then 6 and 12 months later). 545 patients, 262 of them women (48.1%), were included. The patients were assigned to a goal checking group (n = 132), a goal setting group (n = 143), and a control group (n = 270). The primary endpoints were health-related behavior (exercise, diet, tobacco consumption), subjective state of health, and medication adherence. The secondary endpoints included physiological protection and risk factors such as blood pressure, cholesterol (HDL, LDL, and total), blood sugar, HbA1c, and body-mass index. RESULTS: The intervention had no demonstrable effect on the primary or secondary endpoints. The percentage of smokers declined to a similar extent in all groups from the beginning of rehabilitation to 12 months after its end (overall figures: 12.4% to 8.6%, p <0.05). The patients' exercise behavior, diet, and subjective state of health also improved over the entire course of the study. Women had a healthier diet than men. Subgroup analyses indicated a possible effect of the intervention on exercise behavior in women who were employed and in men who were not (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of goal setting was not demonstrated. Therefore, no indication for its routine provision can be derived from the study results.
Authors: P Giannuzzi; H Saner; H Björnstad; P Fioretti; M Mendes; A Cohen-Solal; L Dugmore; R Hambrecht; I Hellemans; H McGee; J Perk; L Vanhees; G Veress Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Nancy T Artinian; Gerald F Fletcher; Dariush Mozaffarian; Penny Kris-Etherton; Linda Van Horn; Alice H Lichtenstein; Shiriki Kumanyika; William E Kraus; Jerome L Fleg; Nancy S Redeker; Janet C Meininger; Joanne Banks; Eileen M Stuart-Shor; Barbara J Fletcher; Todd D Miller; Suzanne Hughes; Lynne T Braun; Laurie A Kopin; Kathy Berra; Laura L Hayman; Linda J Ewing; Philip A Ades; J Larry Durstine; Nancy Houston-Miller; Lora E Burke Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-07-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Shirley M Moore; Jacqueline M Charvat; Nahida H Gordon; Fredric Pashkow; Paul Ribisl; Beverly L Roberts; Michael Rocco Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2006-02
Authors: Tammy C Hoffmann; Paul P Glasziou; Isabelle Boutron; Ruairidh Milne; Rafael Perera; David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Virginia Barbour; Helen Macdonald; Marie Johnston; Sarah E Lamb; Mary Dixon-Woods; Peter McCulloch; Jeremy C Wyatt; An-Wen Chan; Susan Michie Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-03-07