The influence of treatment modality on illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction

Ahmed Mohammad Al-Smadi, Loai Issa Tawalbeh, Ala Ashour, Issa M Hweidi, Besher Gharaibeh, Paul F Slater, Donna Fitzsimons

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives
This study aims to determine if patients with acute myocardial infarction differ in illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes depending on the treatment they received.

Methods
A repeated measures design was used to compare patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving three different treatment modalities: ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention, ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by thrombolytic therapy, and non ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by medication. A convenient sampling technique was used to recruit 206 patients with acute myocardial infarction who agreed to participate in the current study. Patients' illness perception, physical activity, and demographical and clinical data were collected during hospital admission and again at 6 months.

Results
A total of 186 patients completed the study. Results showed that the primary percutaneous coronary intervention group perceived their illness as acute rather than chronic (P = 0.034) and has lower personal control (P = 0.032), higher treatment control (P = 0.025), and higher perception of illness coherence (P = 0.022) compared with patients receiving thrombolytic therapy and treated after non-ST segment infarction. Moreover, they report low control of their blood pressure (P = 0.013) and less physical activity (P = 0.001).

Conclusion
The results of this study revealed that patients' treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention had negative illness perception and limited behavioral changes 6 months after hospitalization in comparison with other treatment modalities such as percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolytic treatment. Further research is recommended to confirm this association with longer follow-up study and among different cultures.

LanguageEnglish
Pages271-277
JournalInternational Journal of Nursing Sciences
Volume4
Issue number3
Early online date23 Jun 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Jul 2017

Fingerprint

Secondary Prevention
Myocardial Infarction
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Thrombolytic Therapy
Therapeutics
Exercise
Infarction
Hospitalization
Blood Pressure
Research

Keywords

  • Acute myocardial infarction
  • Illness perception
  • Primary percutaneous coronary intervention
  • Secondary prevention

Cite this

Al-Smadi, Ahmed Mohammad ; Tawalbeh, Loai Issa ; Ashour, Ala ; Hweidi, Issa M ; Gharaibeh, Besher ; Slater, Paul F ; Fitzsimons, Donna. / The influence of treatment modality on illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction. In: International Journal of Nursing Sciences. 2017 ; Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 271-277.
@article{c787a3b1cf4e44318f299068cf057723,
title = "The influence of treatment modality on illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction",
abstract = "ObjectivesThis study aims to determine if patients with acute myocardial infarction differ in illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes depending on the treatment they received.MethodsA repeated measures design was used to compare patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving three different treatment modalities: ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention, ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by thrombolytic therapy, and non ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by medication. A convenient sampling technique was used to recruit 206 patients with acute myocardial infarction who agreed to participate in the current study. Patients' illness perception, physical activity, and demographical and clinical data were collected during hospital admission and again at 6 months.ResultsA total of 186 patients completed the study. Results showed that the primary percutaneous coronary intervention group perceived their illness as acute rather than chronic (P = 0.034) and has lower personal control (P = 0.032), higher treatment control (P = 0.025), and higher perception of illness coherence (P = 0.022) compared with patients receiving thrombolytic therapy and treated after non-ST segment infarction. Moreover, they report low control of their blood pressure (P = 0.013) and less physical activity (P = 0.001).ConclusionThe results of this study revealed that patients' treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention had negative illness perception and limited behavioral changes 6 months after hospitalization in comparison with other treatment modalities such as percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolytic treatment. Further research is recommended to confirm this association with longer follow-up study and among different cultures.",
keywords = "Acute myocardial infarction, Illness perception, Primary percutaneous coronary intervention, Secondary prevention",
author = "Al-Smadi, {Ahmed Mohammad} and Tawalbeh, {Loai Issa} and Ala Ashour and Hweidi, {Issa M} and Besher Gharaibeh and Slater, {Paul F} and Donna Fitzsimons",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.06.007",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "271--277",
journal = "International Journal of Nursing Sciences",
issn = "2352-0132",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

The influence of treatment modality on illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction. / Al-Smadi, Ahmed Mohammad; Tawalbeh, Loai Issa; Ashour, Ala; Hweidi, Issa M; Gharaibeh, Besher; Slater, Paul F; Fitzsimons, Donna.

In: International Journal of Nursing Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 3, 10.07.2017, p. 271-277.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The influence of treatment modality on illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction

AU - Al-Smadi, Ahmed Mohammad

AU - Tawalbeh, Loai Issa

AU - Ashour, Ala

AU - Hweidi, Issa M

AU - Gharaibeh, Besher

AU - Slater, Paul F

AU - Fitzsimons, Donna

PY - 2017/7/10

Y1 - 2017/7/10

N2 - ObjectivesThis study aims to determine if patients with acute myocardial infarction differ in illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes depending on the treatment they received.MethodsA repeated measures design was used to compare patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving three different treatment modalities: ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention, ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by thrombolytic therapy, and non ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by medication. A convenient sampling technique was used to recruit 206 patients with acute myocardial infarction who agreed to participate in the current study. Patients' illness perception, physical activity, and demographical and clinical data were collected during hospital admission and again at 6 months.ResultsA total of 186 patients completed the study. Results showed that the primary percutaneous coronary intervention group perceived their illness as acute rather than chronic (P = 0.034) and has lower personal control (P = 0.032), higher treatment control (P = 0.025), and higher perception of illness coherence (P = 0.022) compared with patients receiving thrombolytic therapy and treated after non-ST segment infarction. Moreover, they report low control of their blood pressure (P = 0.013) and less physical activity (P = 0.001).ConclusionThe results of this study revealed that patients' treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention had negative illness perception and limited behavioral changes 6 months after hospitalization in comparison with other treatment modalities such as percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolytic treatment. Further research is recommended to confirm this association with longer follow-up study and among different cultures.

AB - ObjectivesThis study aims to determine if patients with acute myocardial infarction differ in illness perception and secondary prevention outcomes depending on the treatment they received.MethodsA repeated measures design was used to compare patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving three different treatment modalities: ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention, ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by thrombolytic therapy, and non ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by medication. A convenient sampling technique was used to recruit 206 patients with acute myocardial infarction who agreed to participate in the current study. Patients' illness perception, physical activity, and demographical and clinical data were collected during hospital admission and again at 6 months.ResultsA total of 186 patients completed the study. Results showed that the primary percutaneous coronary intervention group perceived their illness as acute rather than chronic (P = 0.034) and has lower personal control (P = 0.032), higher treatment control (P = 0.025), and higher perception of illness coherence (P = 0.022) compared with patients receiving thrombolytic therapy and treated after non-ST segment infarction. Moreover, they report low control of their blood pressure (P = 0.013) and less physical activity (P = 0.001).ConclusionThe results of this study revealed that patients' treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention had negative illness perception and limited behavioral changes 6 months after hospitalization in comparison with other treatment modalities such as percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolytic treatment. Further research is recommended to confirm this association with longer follow-up study and among different cultures.

KW - Acute myocardial infarction

KW - Illness perception

KW - Primary percutaneous coronary intervention

KW - Secondary prevention

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.06.007

DO - 10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.06.007

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 271

EP - 277

JO - International Journal of Nursing Sciences

T2 - International Journal of Nursing Sciences

JF - International Journal of Nursing Sciences

SN - 2352-0132

IS - 3

ER -