4.2 Article

Recovering from a heart attack: a qualitative study into lay experiences and the struggle to make lifestyle changes

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 220-225

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmi089

关键词

heart disease; lay experiences; lifestyle change; long-term support; quantitative research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The adoption of healthy living advice by people with heart disease is known to be poor even in targeted interventions. Reasons for this can range from confusion about the seriousness of the condition to ineffectiveness in the form of advice and how it is conveyed. However, the social setting can be an important influence on lifestyle change. Objectives. To identify views and experiences of people recovering from myocardial infarction, specifically barriers to, and facilitators of, following advice about lifestyle change and maintenance. Methods. Focus groups and interviews were undertaken with men and women discharged from hospital two/three years previously. A total of 53 people (35 men and 18 women) took part, recruited via a coronary care unit and patients' GPs. Results. A major finding was participants' desires for long-term monitoring and support. While reported sources, form and content of coronary heart disease advice varied, most participants agreed that long-term follow up or back-up would be helpful, although what this should include and how it should be undertaken was not the same for all participants. This would fulfil needs such as: help in following lifestyle advice; sharing with people with similar experiences; regular contact with medical/health professionals (for confirmation of good heath and to ask questions); providing reassurance to other members of the patients' families. Conclusions. A long-term programme is needed incorporating mutual support and sharing with regular (not necessarily frequent) input from practitioners of information, advice and reassurance, as a support strategy for lifestyle change.

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

4.2
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