Cited by 397Cardiac Health and Mental HealthMedical Practices and RehabilitationCancer survivorship and care

Further development of an illness perception intervention for myocardial infarction patients: A randomized controlled trial

Broadbent, Elizabeth, Ellis, Chris J., Thomas, Janine, Gamble, Greg, Petrie, Keith J.·2009·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective To further develop and trial a brief in-hospital illness perception intervention for myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Methods One hundred and three patients admitted with acute MI were randomized to receive either standard care or standard care plus an illness perception intervention, which consisted of three half-hour patient sessions and one half-hour patient-and-spouse session delivered in hospital. Patients were followed up to 6 months. The main outcome was the difference between groups in rate of return to work. Results The intervention group had a faster rate of return to work than the control group, and more patients in the intervention group had returned to full time work by 3 months than in the control group. At discharge, patients in the intervention group demonstrated changes in causal attributions regarding their MI and higher perceived understanding of their condition, which remained at the 6-month follow-up. They also reported a better understanding of the information given in hospital, higher intentions to attend cardiac rehabilitation classes, lower anxiety about returning to work, greater increases in exercise, and made fewer phone calls to their general practitioner about their heart condition at follow-up. Conclusion This study replicates the findings of an earlier trial that a brief in-hospital illness perception intervention can change perceptions and improve rates of return to work in MI patients. It increases the generalizability of the in…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.12.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 397

Authors
Broadbent, E., Ellis, C. J., Thomas, J., Gamble, G., & Petrie, K. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Auckland District Health Board (NZ)
Corresponding author
Broadbent, Elizabeth
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-07
Volume
67
Issue
1
Pages
17-23
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069990083
Cited by
397
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 39
FWCI
15.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
illness perception, myocardial infarction, return to work, causal attribution, cardiac rehabilitation, physical activity, patient education, spouse involvement, intervention generalizability
MeSH terms
Coronary Artery Bypass, Attitude to Health, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hospitalization, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Myocardial Infarction, Patient Compliance, Patient Discharge, Surveys and Questionnaires, Health Behavior, Illness Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review