3.9 Review

Gender-specific issues in cardiac rehabilitation: do women with ischaemic heart disease need specially tailored programmes?

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e3280128bce

Keywords

coping; epidemiology; gender; ischaemic heart disease; physical activities; rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) has changed from a disease of middle-aged men in the late 1970s to a disease of elderly women in the 2000s. Most clinical studies during the past three decades have been conducted with men. Cardiac rehabilitation programmes were also developed with special regard to improving the rate of return to work in middle-aged men. The rehabilitation needs of older patients and women in particular have been largely neglected. The aim of this review is briefly to outline our present knowledge on gender issues in cardiac rehabilitation, and to specify barriers with regard to physical activities especially in (older) women. Coping with a cardiac event, women tend to minimize or play down the impact of their health situation and avoid burdening their social contacts. After a first cardiac event, women report greater psychological distress and lower self-efficacy and self-esteem. In addition, older age, lower exercise levels and reduced functional capacity or co-morbid conditions such as osteoporosis and urinary incontinence are barriers to physical activities in women with IHD. Recent studies on psychosocial intervention revealed less favourable results in women compared with men. These findings have not yet been well explained. This emphasizes our current lack of knowledge about the processes and determinants of successful psychosocial interventions in men and women with IHD. A large (European) trial on gender-specific coping styles, needs, and preferences of older women, and the effects of psychosocial intervention is proposed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available