Comparison of coping responses to symptoms between first-time sufferers and those with a previous history of acute myocardial infarction

The second myocardial infarction: Is there any difference in symptoms and prehospital delay compared to the first myocardial infarction?

BACKGROUND

Knowledge is limited concerning the type of symptoms and the time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact at first and second myocardial infarction in the same patient.

AIM

This study aimed to describe the type of symptoms and the time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact in first and second myocardial infarctions in men and women affected by two myocardial infarctions. Furthermore, the aim was to identify factors associated with prehospital delays ≥2 h at second myocardial infarction.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study with 820 patients aged 31-74 years with a first and a second myocardial infarction from 1986 through 2009 registered in the Northern Sweden MONICA registry.

RESULTS

The most common symptoms reported among patients affected by two myocardial infarctions are typical symptoms at both myocardial infarction events. Significantly more women reported atypical symptoms at the second myocardial infarction compared to the first. Ten per cent of the men did not report the same type of symptoms at the first and second myocardial infarctions; the corresponding figure for women was 16.2%. The time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was shorter at the second myocardial infarction compared to the first myocardial infarction. Patients with prehospital delay ≥2 h at the first myocardial infarction were more likely to have a prehospital delay ≥2 h at the second myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms of second myocardial infarctions are not necessarily the same as those of first myocardial infarctions. A patient's behaviour at the first myocardial infarction could predict how he or she would behave at a second myocardial infarction.

Reducing the time-lag between onset of chest pain and seeking professional medical help: a theory-based review

BACKGROUND

Research suggests that there are a number of factors which can be associated with delay in a patient seeking professional help following chest pain, including demographic and social factors. These factors may have an adverse impact on the efficacy of interventions which to date have had limited success in improving patient action times. Theory-based methods of review are becoming increasingly recognised as important additions to conventional systematic review methods. They can be useful to gain additional insights into the characteristics of effective interventions by uncovering complex underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

This paper describes the further analysis of research papers identified in a conventional systematic review of published evidence. The aim of this work was to investigate the theoretical frameworks underpinning studies exploring the issue of why people having a heart attack delay seeking professional medical help. The study used standard review methods to identify papers meeting the inclusion criterion, and carried out a synthesis of data relating to theoretical underpinnings.

RESULTS

Thirty six papers from the 53 in the original systematic review referred to a particular theoretical perspective, or contained data which related to theoretical assumptions. The most frequently mentioned theory was the self-regulatory model of illness behaviour. Papers reported the potential significance of aspects of this model including different coping mechanisms, strategies of denial and varying models of treatment seeking. Studies also drew attention to the potential role of belief systems, applied elements of attachment theory, and referred to models of maintaining integrity, ways of knowing, and the influence of gender.

CONCLUSIONS

The review highlights the need to examine an individual's subjective experience of and response to health threats, and confirms the gap between knowledge and changed behaviour. Interventions face key challenges if they are to influence patient perceptions regarding seriousness of symptoms; varying processes of coping; and obstacles created by patient perceptions of their role and responsibilities. A theoretical approach to review of these papers provides additional insight into the assumptions underpinning interventions, and illuminates factors which may impact on their efficacy. The method thus offers a useful supplement to conventional systematic review methods.