Catherine Kreatsoulas1,2, Cameron Taheri3, Niveditha Pattathil4, Puru Panchal5, Tanya Kakkar6. 1. Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. ckreats@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. ckreats@hsph.harvard.edu. 3. Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 5. Faculty of Health Sciences, Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is a prevailing perception that coronary artery disease (CAD) is a "man's disease," little is known about the factors which influence cardiac risk assessment and whether it varies by gender. OBJECTIVES: 1) Qualitatively capture the complexity of cardiac risk assessment from a patient-centered perspective. 2) Explore how risk assessment may vary by gender. 3) Quantitatively validate qualitative findings among a new sample. DESIGN: This study was conducted in two parts: (1) semi-structured in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using modified grounded theory; (2) emergent themes were surveyed in a separate sample to validate findings quantitatively. Differences were estimated using 2-tailed t-tests and kappa. PARTICIPANTS: Participants who were referred for their first elective coronary angiogram for suspected CAD with at least 1 prior abnormal test were recruited from a tertiary care hospital. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-centered themes were derived from part one. In part two, patients estimated the probability that their symptoms were heart-related at multiple time points. RESULTS: Part 1 included 14 men and 17 women (mean age=63.3±11.8 years). Part 2 included 237 patients, of which 109 (46%) were women (mean age=66.0±11.3 years). Part 1 revealed that patients' risk assessment evolves in three distinct phases, which were captured using an Ishikawa framework entitled "Patient Risk Interpretation of Symptoms Model" (PRISM). Part 2 validated PRISM findings; while patients were more likely to attribute their symptoms to CAD over time (phase 1 vs. 3: 21% vs. 73%, p<0.001), women were marginally less likely than men to perceive symptoms as heart-related by phase 3 (67% women vs. 78% men, p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Patient assessment of CAD risk evolves, and women are more likely to underestimate their risk than men. PRISM may be used as a clinical aid to optimize patient-centered care. Future studies should validate PRISM in different clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: While there is a prevailing perception that coronary artery disease (CAD) is a "man's disease," little is known about the factors which influence cardiac risk assessment and whether it varies by gender. OBJECTIVES: 1) Qualitatively capture the complexity of cardiac risk assessment from a patient-centered perspective. 2) Explore how risk assessment may vary by gender. 3) Quantitatively validate qualitative findings among a new sample. DESIGN: This study was conducted in two parts: (1) semi-structured in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using modified grounded theory; (2) emergent themes were surveyed in a separate sample to validate findings quantitatively. Differences were estimated using 2-tailed t-tests and kappa. PARTICIPANTS: Participants who were referred for their first elective coronary angiogram for suspected CAD with at least 1 prior abnormal test were recruited from a tertiary care hospital. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-centered themes were derived from part one. In part two, patients estimated the probability that their symptoms were heart-related at multiple time points. RESULTS: Part 1 included 14 men and 17 women (mean age=63.3±11.8 years). Part 2 included 237 patients, of which 109 (46%) were women (mean age=66.0±11.3 years). Part 1 revealed that patients' risk assessment evolves in three distinct phases, which were captured using an Ishikawa framework entitled "Patient Risk Interpretation of Symptoms Model" (PRISM). Part 2 validated PRISM findings; while patients were more likely to attribute their symptoms to CAD over time (phase 1 vs. 3: 21% vs. 73%, p<0.001), women were marginally less likely than men to perceive symptoms as heart-related by phase 3 (67% women vs. 78% men, p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Patient assessment of CAD risk evolves, and women are more likely to underestimate their risk than men. PRISM may be used as a clinical aid to optimize patient-centered care. Future studies should validate PRISM in different clinical settings.
Authors: Sahil Khera; Dhaval Kolte; Tanush Gupta; Kathir Selvan Subramanian; Neel Khanna; Wilbert S Aronow; Chul Ahn; Robert J Timmermans; Howard A Cooper; Gregg C Fonarow; William H Frishman; Julio A Panza; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D C Goff; H A Feldman; P G McGovern; R J Goldberg; D G Simons-Morton; C E Cornell; S K Osganian; L S Cooper; J R Hedges Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Philippe Gabriel Steg; Robert J Goldberg; Joel M Gore; Keith A A Fox; Kim A Eagle; Marcus D Flather; Immad Sadiq; Rachel Kasper; Sophie K Rushton-Mellor; Frederick A Anderson Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Sripal Bangalore; Gregg C Fonarow; Eric D Peterson; Anne S Hellkamp; Adrian F Hernandez; Warren Laskey; W Frank Peacock; Christopher P Cannon; Lee H Schwamm; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: Am J Med Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Catherine Kreatsoulas; Harry S Shannon; Mita Giacomini; James L Velianou; Sonia S Anand Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873