Randomized controlled trial of an intervention to change cardiac misconceptions in myocardial infarction patients

The feasibility of delivering cardiac brief intervention to patients following ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients experience emotional distress and hold cardiac misconceptions following ST-elevation myocardial infarction. These issues informed the co-production of Cardiac Brief Intervention with patients and clinicians. The current study will establish a knowledge base for the feasibility of delivering this intervention to patients following ST-elevation myocardial infarction, with a preliminary exploration of impact on associated outcomes (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05848674).

METHODS

A pilot randomised controlled trial incorporating a mixed-methods design will be conducted. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (number = 40) will be recruited from coronary care units at two hospital centres in Northern Ireland, with participants randomised (1:1) to the intervention or control group. Cardiac Brief Intervention constitutes a nurse-led, short (20 minutes) emotional and educational support discussion with a patient, with a leaflet that serves as a memory-aid. It will be delivered to the intervention group prior to discharge from a coronary care unit. The control group will receive standard care information. Data will be collected at baseline, post-intervention, 4 weeks from diagnosis, and 14 weeks from diagnosis. Feasibility measurements and process evaluation (quantitative and qualitative) will assess the viability of the research design and intervention delivery. Cardiac rehabilitation attendance data will be collected, and participants will complete questionnaires related to associated outcomes. Quantitative data will be reported with descriptive statistics and qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis, with data integrated to achieve triangulation of findings.

DISCUSSION

Educational and emotional difficulties following ST-elevation myocardial infarction may impede patient outcomes and cardiac rehabilitation participation. These issues informed the co-production of Cardiac Brief Intervention with patients and clinicians. This study will evaluate the feasibility of delivering Cardiac Brief Intervention to patients. These results will inform large-scale definitive testing of the intervention, which may lead to adoption in clinical practice to improve cardiac rehabilitation uptake and patient outcomes.

A Theoretical Qualitative Investigation Exploring Illness Perceptions and Decision-Making About COVID-19 in an Ethnically Diverse UK-Based Sample

PURPOSE

The primary aim of the present investigation was to explore perceptions, experiences, and decision-making relating to the COVID-19 illness as the UK entered into a phase of "living safely with COVID-19". A secondary aim was to explore how perceptions around the COVID-19 vaccine might vary by ethnicity.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We adopted a qualitative approach with a diverse sample of UK-based participants. One-hundred-and-ninety-three individuals completed an online survey measuring perceptions towards COVID-19 with questions conceptualized through the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation.

RESULTS

Through deductive thematic analysis we identified one overarching theme in our data, "The transition back to normal routines", with four themes illustrating individuals' perceptions and experiences with COVID-19: 1) "Living with the uncertainty", 2) "Concern for others", 3) "The multiple consequences of COVID-19", and 4) "Sense of control", with the sub-theme of "Should I vaccinate, should I not vaccinate?".

CONCLUSION

Findings from the present investigation provide key insights for understanding how people's perceptions of COVID-19 during this transition period might impact their decisions and behavior moving forward. Specifically, findings suggest some prevailing concerns around catching the virus, while no strong qualitative evidence for concerns over long COVID were identified in this sample, the responsibility felt by individuals towards taking their own precautionary measures in light of the easing of all national restrictions, and some potential differences in perceptions towards the vaccine between individuals from different ethnic backgrounds.

Barriers and facilitators to participating in cardiac rehabilitation and physical activity: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been shown to be the greatest cause of death worldwide and rates continue to increase. It is recommended that CVD patients attend cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following a cardiac event to reduce mortality, improve recovery and positively influence behaviour around CVD risk factors. Despite the recognised benefits and international recommendations for exercise-based CR, uptake and attendance remain suboptimal. A greater understanding of CR barriers and facilitators is required, not least to inform service development. Through understanding current cardiac patients’ attitudes and opinions around CR and physical activity (PA) could inform patient-led improvements. Moreover, through understanding aspects of CR and PA that participants like/dislike could provide healthcare providers and policy makers with information around what elements to target in the future.

AIM

To investigate participants’ attitudes and opinions around CR and PA.

METHODS

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design on 567 cardiac patients. Cardiac patients who were referred for standard CR classes at a hospital in the Scottish Highlands, from May 2016 to May 2017 were sampled. As part of a larger survey, the current study analysed the free-text responses to 5 open-ended questions included within the wider survey. Questions were related to the participants’ experience of CR, reasons for non-attendance, ideas to increase attendance and their opinions on PA. Qualitative data were analysed using a 6-step, reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two main topic areas were explored: “Cardiac rehabilitation experience” and “physical activity”. Self-efficacy was increased as a result of attending CR due to exercising with similar individuals and the safe environment offered. Barriers ranged from age and health to distance and starting times of the classes which increased travel time and costs. Moreover, responses demonstrated a lack of information and communication around the classes. Respondents highlighted that the provision of more classes and classes being held out with working hours, in addition to a greater variety would increase attendance. In terms of PA, respondents viewed this as different to the CR experience. Responses demonstrated increased freedom when conducting PA with regards to the location, time and type of exercise conducted.

CONCLUSION

Changes to the structure of CR may prove important in creating long term behaviour change after completing the rehabilitation programme.

Illness Perceptions of COVID-19 in Europe: Predictors, Impacts and Temporal Evolution

Objective: Illness perceptions (IP) are important predictors of emotional and behavioral responses in many diseases. The current study aims to investigate the COVID-19-related IP throughout Europe. The specific goals are to understand the temporal development, identify predictors (within demographics and contact with COVID-19) and examine the impacts of IP on perceived stress and preventive behaviors.

Methods: This was a time-series-cross-section study of 7,032 participants from 16 European countries using multilevel modeling from April to June 2020. IP were measured with the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Temporal patterns were observed considering the date of participation and the date recoded to account the epidemiological evolution of each country. The outcomes considered were perceived stress and COVID-19 preventive behaviors.

Results: There were significant trends, over time, for several IP, suggesting a small decrease in negativity in the perception of COVID-19 in the community. Age, gender, and education level related to some, but not all, IP. Considering the self-regulation model, perceptions consistently predicted general stress and were less consistently related to preventive behaviors. Country showed no effect in the predictive model, suggesting that national differences may have little relevance for IP, in this context.

Conclusion: The present study provides a comprehensive picture of COVID-19 IP in Europe in an early stage of the pandemic. The results shed light on the process of IP formation with implications for health-related outcomes and their evolution.

Cognitive behavioral therapy reduces illness perceptions and anxiety symptoms in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysm

The main purpose of this study was to assess the relation between cognitive behavioral therapy and possible changes in illness perceptions and anxiety in patients diagnosed with unruptured intracranial aneurysm. An observational study of an intervention with 67 patients with an unruptured intracranial aneurysm from two medical centers in a Colombian city (n = 35 on the intervention group) was carried out. To assess changes, measurements were taken at baseline and at one-year follow-up with the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Illness Perception Questionnaire, brief version, taking into account the importance of perceptions in the process of adjusting to illness and acquiring healthy life habits. Hypotheses were tested by a structural model. The results obtained from this study showed that illness perceptions were related to anxiety levels at both time points; however, the relations were stronger before cognitive behavioral therapy (βt0 = 0.61, p < 0.01; βt1 = 0.37, p < 0.01). Cognitive behavioral therapy was found to be a moderator of changes in both illness perceptions and anxiety at the time of follow-up (β = -0.31, p < 0.01; β = -0.26, p < 0.01). The structural model suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy is associated with less anxiety (β = -0.17, p < 0.05) and better illness perceptions (β = -0.35, p < 0.01) in patients diagnosed with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Health-related risk behaviors among myocardial infarction survivors in the United States: A propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

According to the American College of Cardiology/the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommendations, health-related risk behaviors for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) are critical to determine.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare health-related risk behaviors between MI survivors and propensity-score-matched non-MI controls using nationally representative data.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, matched case-control study used publicly available Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2017 data. Older adults with MI were propensity-score-matched to their non-MI controls. The 10 dependent variables included body mass index (BMI), smoking status, heavy alcohol consumption, influenza vaccine, length of time since last routine and cholesterol checkup, alcohol consumption, fruit and vegetable consumption, and physical activity. Chi-square tests and binomial logistic regression were used to examine the health-related risk behaviors differences between MI survivors and propensity-score-matched non-MI controls.

RESULTS

The final study sample consisted of 18,021 MI survivors and 54,063 non-MI controls after propensity score matching. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed significant differences between MI survivors and matched non-MI controls in terms of cholesterol checkup, smoking status, and alcohol consumption. For example, multivariate analysis of health-related risk behaviors showed MI survivors were more likely to be smokers (AOR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.28-1.68).

CONCLUSION

Based on this national survey of adults, MI survivors were more likely to be smokers but less likely to consume alcohol compared to their propensity-score-matched controls. Moreover, MI survivors were more likely to have their cholesterol checkup within the past 2 years compared to matched non-MI controls. Although lower alcohol consumption and greater chances of cholesterol checkups are reassuring health-related behaviors, interventions are needed to minimize the chances of smoking in this population.

Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

People with coronary heart disease (CHD) often require prolonged absences from work to convalesce after acute disease events like myocardial infarctions (MI) or revascularisation procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced functional capacity and anxiety due to CHD may further delay or prevent return to work.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of person- and work-directed interventions aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with coronary heart disease compared to usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and LILACS through 11 October 2018. We also searched the US National Library of Medicine registry, clinicaltrials.gov, to identify ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining return to work among people with CHD who were provided either an intervention or usual care. Selected studies included only people treated for MI or who had undergone either a CABG or PCI. At least 80% of the study population should have been working prior to the CHD and not at the time of the trial, or study authors had to have considered a return-to-work subgroup. We included studies in all languages. Two review authors independently selected the studies and consulted a third review author to resolve disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses of rates of return to work and time until return to work. We considered the secondary outcomes, health-related quality of life and adverse events among studies where at least 80% of study participants were eligible to return to work.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 39 RCTs (including one cluster- and four three-armed RCTs). We included the return-to-work results of 34 studies in the meta-analyses.Person-directed, psychological counselling versus usual careWe included 11 studies considering return to work following psychological interventions among a subgroup of 615 participants in the meta-analysis. Most interventions used some form of counselling to address participants' disease-related anxieties and provided information on the causes and course of CHD to dispel misconceptions. We do not know if these interventions increase return to work up to six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.40; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at six to 12 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; seven studies; very low-certainty evidence). We also do not know if psychological interventions shorten the time until return to work. Psychological interventions may have little or no effect on the proportion of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; three studies; low-certainty evidence).Person-directed, work-directed counselling versus usual careFour studies examined work-directed counselling. These counselling interventions included advising patients when to return to work based on treadmill testing or extended counselling to include co-workers' fears and misconceptions regarding CHD. Work-directed counselling may result in little to no difference in the mean difference (MD) in days until return to work (MD -7.52 days, 95% CI -20.07 to 5.03 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Work-directed counselling probably results in little to no difference in cardiac deaths (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.39; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, physical conditioning interventions versus usual careNine studies examined the impact of exercise programmes. Compared to usual care, we do not know if physical interventions increase return to work up to six months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in return-to-work rates at six to 12 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.20; five studies; low-certainty evidence), and may also result in little to no difference on the rates of patients working after one year (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; two studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in the time needed to return to work (MD -7.86 days, 95% CI -29.46 to 13.74 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions probably do not increase cardiac death rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.80; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, combined interventions versus usual careWe included 13 studies considering return to work following combined interventions in the meta-analysis. Combined cardiac rehabilitation programmes may have increased return to work up to six months (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; four studies; low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no difference on return-to-work rates at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; 10 studies; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if combined interventions increased the proportions of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.37; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Combined interventions probably shortened the time needed until return to work (MD -40.77, 95% CI -67.19 to -14.35; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Combining interventions probably results in little to no difference in reinfarctions (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.40; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Work-directed, interventionsWe found no studies exclusively examining strictly work-directed interventions at the workplace.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined interventions may increase return to work up to six months and probably reduce the time away from work. Otherwise, we found no evidence of either a beneficial or harmful effect of person-directed interventions. The certainty of the evidence for the various interventions and outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. Return to work was typically a secondary outcome of the studies, and as such, the results pertaining to return to work were often poorly reported. Adhering to RCT reporting guidelines could greatly improve the evidence of future research. A research gap exists regarding controlled trials of work-directed interventions, health-related quality of life within the return-to-work process, and adverse effects.