4.5 Article

Public knowledge of cardiovascular disease and response to acute cardiac events in three cities in China and India

期刊

HEART
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 67-72

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311388

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medtronic Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To inform interventions targeted towards reducing mortality from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and sudden cardiac arrest in three megacities in China and India, a baseline assessment of public knowledge, attitudes and practices was performed. Methods A household survey, supplemented by focus group and individual interviews, was used to assess public understanding of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, AMI symptoms, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Additionally, information was collected on emergency service utilisation and associated barriers to care. Results 5456 household surveys were completed. Hypertension was most commonly recognised among CVD risk factors in Beijing and Shanghai (68% and 67%, respectively), while behavioural risk factors were most commonly identified in Bangalore (smoking 91%; excessive alcohol consumption 64%). Chest pain/discomfort was reported by at least 60% of respondents in all cities as a symptom of AMI, but 21% of individuals in Bangalore could not name a single symptom. In Beijing, Shanghai and Bangalore, 26%, 15% and 3% of respondents were trained in CPR, respectively. Less than one-quarter of participants in all cities recognised an AED. Finally, emergency service utilisation rates were low, and many individuals expressed concern about the quality of prehospital care. Conclusions Overall, we found low to modest knowledge of CVD risk factors and AMI symptoms, infrequent CPR training and little understanding of AEDs. Interventions will need to focus on basic principles of CVD and its complications in order for patients to receive timely and appropriate care for acute cardiac events.

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

4.5
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