4.1 Review

Socioeconomic differences in psychosocial factors contributing to coronary heart disease: A review

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10880-008-9117-8

关键词

coronary heart disease; psychosocial factors; socioeconomic differences; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychosocial factors have been shown to play an important role in the aetiology of coronary heart disease (CHD). A strong association between CHD and socioeconomic status (lower-level education, poor financial situation) has also been well established. Socioeconomic differences may thus also have an effect on psychosocial risk factors associated with CHD, and socioeconomic disadvantage may negatively affect the later prognosis and quality of life of cardiac patients. The aim of this study was to review the available evidence on socioeconomic differences in psychosocial factors which specifically contribute to CHD. A computer-aided search of the Medline and PsycINFO databases resulted in 301 articles in English published between 1994 and 2007. A comprehensive screening process identified 12 empirical studies which described the socioeconomic differences in CHD risk factors. A review of these studies showed that socioeconomic status (educational grade, occupation or income) was adversely associated with psychosocial factors linked to CHD. This association was evident in the case of hostility and depression. Available studies also showed a similar trend with respect to social support, perception of health and lack of optimism. Less consistent were the results related to anger and perceived stress levels. Socioeconomic disadvantage seems to be an important element influencing the psychosocial factors related to CHD, thus, a more comprehensive clarification of associations between these factors might be useful. More studies are needed, focused not only on well-known risk factors such as depression and hostility, but also on some lesser known psychosocial factors such as Type D and vital exhaustion and their role in CHD.

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

4.1
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