4.6 Article

Lifestyle modification programmes for patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 620-640

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1177/2047487312462824

关键词

Cardiac rehabilitation; coronary heart disease; lifestyle modification; meta-analysis; secondary prevention; self-regulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Lifestyle modification programmes for coronary heart disease patients have been shown to effectively improve risk factors and related health behaviours, quality of life, reincidence, and mortality. However, improvements in routine cardiac care over the recent years may offset the incremental benefit associated with older programmes. Purpose To determine the efficacy of lifestyle modification programmes for coronary heart disease patients developed over the last decade (1999-2009) by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results The study included 23 trials (involving 11,085 randomized patients). Lifestyle modification programmes were associated with reduced all-cause mortality (summary OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.64), cardiac mortality (summary OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17-1.88), and cardiac readmissions and non-fatal reinfarctions (summary OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.17-1.55). Furthermore, lifestyle modification programmes positively affected risk factors and related lifestyle behaviours at posttreatment (M=10.2 months), and some of these benefits were maintained at long-term follow up (M=33.7 months). Improvements in dietary and exercise behaviour were greater for programmes incorporating all four self-regulation techniques (i.e. goal setting, self-monitoring, planning, and feedback techniques) compared to interventions that included none of these techniques. Conclusion The evidence summarized in this meta-analysis confirms the benefits of lifestyle modification programmes - over and above benefits achieved by routine clinical care alone.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据