Casey E Cavanagh1, Lindsey Rosman2, Philip W Chui3, Lori Bastian4, Cynthia Brandt4, Sally Haskell4, Matthew M Burg4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine. 2. Department of Medicine-Cardiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 3. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine. 4. VA Connecticut Healthcare System.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: OEF/OIF/OND Veterans have an elevated risk for developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), but research suggests that engagement in CVD preventive behaviors is low even among at-risk individuals. It is critical to understand barriers to prevention engagement among Veterans to inform the development of tailored interventions addressing barriers and reducing CVD incidence. METHOD: The Women Veterans Cohort Study survey of OEF/OIF/OND Veterans (586 women and 555 men) assessed patient, interpersonal, and systems level barriers to CVD risk prevention. Prevalence of barriers was determined, and chi-squares were conducted to examine sex differences. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to determine if sex differences remained when adjusting for demographic factors (age, marital status, education, employment status). RESULTS: Despite a low response rate (11.5%), endorsement of barriers was high for both women and men, with most (56.8%) not perceiving themselves to be at CVD risk. More men preferred making no lifestyle change (40.9% vs. 29.1%). More women endorsed lack of confidence (42.4% vs. 36.1%), stress (36.9% vs. 27.8%) and depression (36.9% vs. 27.8%), and inadequate social support (26% vs. 20.9%), along with the belief that their clinician does not perceive them as at risk (57.8% vs. 32%) and has not explained CVD preventive behaviors (19% vs. 12.3%). Multivariate analyses reduced statistical significance of sex differences. CONCLUSIONS: Given the low response rate, testing of efforts-for example, implementation science methods-to assess CVD risk reduction barriers in this population are needed, a task for which the Veterans Health Administration is well suited. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE:OEF/OIF/OND Veterans have an elevated risk for developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), but research suggests that engagement in CVD preventive behaviors is low even among at-risk individuals. It is critical to understand barriers to prevention engagement among Veterans to inform the development of tailored interventions addressing barriers and reducing CVD incidence. METHOD: The Women Veterans Cohort Study survey of OEF/OIF/OND Veterans (586 women and 555 men) assessed patient, interpersonal, and systems level barriers to CVD risk prevention. Prevalence of barriers was determined, and chi-squares were conducted to examine sex differences. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to determine if sex differences remained when adjusting for demographic factors (age, marital status, education, employment status). RESULTS: Despite a low response rate (11.5%), endorsement of barriers was high for both women and men, with most (56.8%) not perceiving themselves to be at CVD risk. More men preferred making no lifestyle change (40.9% vs. 29.1%). More women endorsed lack of confidence (42.4% vs. 36.1%), stress (36.9% vs. 27.8%) and depression (36.9% vs. 27.8%), and inadequate social support (26% vs. 20.9%), along with the belief that their clinician does not perceive them as at risk (57.8% vs. 32%) and has not explained CVD preventive behaviors (19% vs. 12.3%). Multivariate analyses reduced statistical significance of sex differences. CONCLUSIONS: Given the low response rate, testing of efforts-for example, implementation science methods-to assess CVD risk reduction barriers in this population are needed, a task for which the Veterans Health Administration is well suited. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Jennifer S Lin; Elizabeth O'Connor; Corinne V Evans; Caitlyn A Senger; Maya G Rowland; Holly C Groom Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David R Thompson; Sek Y Chair; Sally W Chan; Felicity Astin; Patricia M Davidson; Chantal F Ski Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Karen M Stechuchak; Leah L Zullig; Eugene Z Oddone; Maren K Olsen; Felicia A McCant; Lori A Bastian; Bryan C Batch; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael A Cucciare; Nicole Ketroser; Paula Wilbourne; Amanda M Midboe; Ruth Cronkite; Steven M Berg-Smith; John Chardos Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karice K Hyun; Julie Redfern; Anushka Patel; David Peiris; David Brieger; David Sullivan; Mark Harris; Tim Usherwood; Stephen MacMahon; Marilyn Lyford; Mark Woodward Journal: Heart Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Sanket S Dhruva; James Dziura; Harini Bathulapalli; Lindsey Rosman; Allison E Gaffey; Melinda B Davis; Cynthia A Brandt; Sally G Haskell Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Allison A Lewinski; Hayden B Bosworth; Karen M Goldstein; Jennifer M Gierisch; Shelley Jazowski; Felicia McCant; Courtney White-Clark; Valerie A Smith; Leah L Zullig Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2021-02-06