Exploring post-myocardial infarction patients' perceptions of patient-mediated interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (SIGN Guideline 41)

Quality in Primary Care

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 77-83

  Murie, Jill ^a   Ross, Alan ^b   Lough, Murray ^a   Rich, Diane ^c  

^a NHS EDUCATION FOR SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b Ross Consulting   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL COLLEGE OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Coronary heart disease; Decision making; Guidelines; Patient preference; Self management; Treatment choice

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EXPECTATION; HEART INFARCTION; HEART SURGERY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVENTION STUDY; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SECONDARY PREVENTION; SELF CARE; WORK CAPACITY; WORKSHOP;

EID: 33748761983     PISSN: 14791072     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Department of Health. National CHD Patient and Carers Survey. London: Department of Health, 1999.
2. Simpson M, Buckman R, Stewart M et al. Doctor-patient communication: the Toronto consensus statement. British Medical Journal 1991;303:1385-7.
3. Van der Pligt J. Perceived risk and vulnerability as predictors of precautionary behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology 1998;3:1-14.
4. Shaper AG, Pocock SJ, Walker M et al. Risk factors for ischaemic heart disease: the prospective phase of the British Regional Heart Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1985;39:197-209.
5. Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. British Medical Journal 2002; 325:1263-5.
6. Gillespie R, Florin D and Gillam S. Changing Relationships; findings of the Patient Involvement Project. London: King's Fund, 2002.
7. Coulter A, Entwistle V and Gilbert D. Informing Patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials. London: King's Fund, 1998.
8. Department of Health. The Expert Patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century. London: Department of Health, 2001.
9. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease following Myocardial Infarction. (SIGN Guideline 41) Edinburgh: SIGN, 2000.
10. Ritchie J and Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryan A and Burgess R (eds). Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge, pp. 173-94.
11. Kennelly C and Bowling A. Suffering in deference: a focus group study of older cardiac patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Quality in Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I):i23-8.
12. Lloyd AJ. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Quality in Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I):i14-18.
13. Turton J. Importance of information following myocardial infarction: a study of the self-perceived information needs of patients and their spouse/partner compared with the perceptions of nursing staff. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1998;27:770-8.
14. Tilley JD, Gregor FM and Thiessen V. The nurse's role in patient education: incongruent perceptions among nurses and patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1987; 12:291-301.
15. Frasure-Smith N, Lesperance F and Talajic M. Depression and 18 month prognosis after myocardial infarction. Circulation 1995;91:999-1005.
16. Gueyffier F, Froment A and Gouton M. New meta-analysis of treatment trials of hypertension: improving the estimate of therapeutic benefit. Journal of Human Hypertension 1996;10:1-8.
17. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Risk Estimation and the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease (Draft 2.5) February 2006. Edinburgh: SIGN, 2006.