Randomized controlled trial of an intervention to change cardiac misconceptions in myocardial infarction patients

Abstract

There is converging evidence that changing beliefs about an illness leads to positive recovery outcomes. However, cardiac misconceptions interventions have been investigated mainly in Angina or Coronary Heart Disease patients, and less in patients following Myocardial Infarction (MI). In these patients, cardiac misconceptions may play a role in the adjustment or lifestyle changes. This article reports a randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to reduce the strength of misconceptions in patients after a first MI. The primary outcome was the degree of change in misconceptions and the secondary outcomes were: exercise, smoking status, return to work and mood (anxiety and depression). Patients in the intervention condition (n = 60) were compared with a control group (n = 67) receiving usual care. Both groups were evaluated at baseline and 4, 8 and 12 months after hospital discharge. There was a significant time-by-group interaction for the total score of cardiac misconceptions. Patients in the intervention group significantly decreased their total score of cardiac misconceptions at 4 months compared with the control group and this difference was sustained over time. Patients in the intervention group were also more likely to exercise at the follow-up period after MI than the control group. This intervention was effective in reducing the strength of cardiac misconceptions in MI patients and had a positive impact on health behaviour outcomes. These results support the importance of misconceptions in health behaviours and the utility of belief change interventions in promoting health in patients with Myocardial Infarction.

Illness Perceptions of COVID-19 in Europe: Predictors, Impacts and Temporal Evolution

“…Another venue for studying the impact of illness perceptions on coping and behavior is to study interventions aiming at correcting misconceptions. The few studied interventions, aimed at addressing illness misconceptions, have been found to have an impact in health outcomes including behavioral change (Figueiras et al, 2017).…”

Barriers and facilitators to participating in cardiac rehabilitation and physical activity: A cross-sectional survey

“…However, the feeling of safety was removed when conducting PA and worry around adverse events was an issue. This, however, is a common misconception and more needs to be done to reassure patients after a cardiac event that PA is safe[ 21 ].…”

Anxiety following myocardial infarction: A systematic review of psychological interventions.

“…The majority of studies did not provide information on blinding to interventions (participants and outcome assessors) and adherence to intervention. Other areas of concern included deviations from the intended intervention (Burgess et al, 1987; Gruen, 1975; Johnston et al, 1999), the randomization process not being truly random (Gruen, 1975; Johnston et al, 1999), adaptions to standardized anxiety measures (Gruen, 1975; Sararoudi et al, 2016), low adherence (Figueiras et al, 2017; Norlund et al, 2018), missing outcome data (Jones & West, 1996), significant group differences in baseline characteristics (Stern et al, 1983), and noncompliance (Stern et al, 1983). In total, eight studies were deemed as having “some concerns” and seven studies were deemed as having “high” risk of bias.…”

“…Challenging illness perceptions/beliefs was a focus of two studies. One study compared usual care to an intervention that comprised one hospital-based session and four follow-up phone calls (Figueiras et al, 2017). A health psychologist delivered this intervention.…”

“…Both reviewers met to discuss their evaluations. All full-text studies that met inclusion criteria (Baer et al, 1985; Burgess et al, 1987; Fielding, 1980; Figueiras et al, 2017; Ghiasi et al, 2018; Gruen, 1975; Hase & Douglas, 1987; Johnston et al, 1999; Jones & West, 1996; Liang et al, 2019; Moradi et al, 2016; Norlund et al, 2018; Sararoudi et al, 2016; Stern et al, 1983; Thompson, 1989; Thompson & Meddis, 1990; Vahedian-Azimi et al, 2016; Zeighami et al, 2018) were reviewed by E.M.R. and E.N.…”