Cited by 43Cardiac Health and Mental HealthHealth and Well-being StudiesHealth disparities and outcomes

Moderators of the effect of social support on depressive symptoms in cardiac patients

Barefoot, John C, Brummett, Beverly H, Clapp-Channing, Nancy E, Siegler, Ilene C, Vitaliano, Peter P, Williams, Redford B, Mark, Daniel B·2000·The American Journal of Cardiology

Abstract

Social support and depression have been shown to affect the prognosis of coronary patients, and social support has been found to influence depression in community and patient samples. We investigated the characteristics of coronary patients whose depressive symptomatology was most likely to improve with social support. We predicted that social support would be most beneficial for the most severely depressed, the old, the poor, the most severely ill, and those with poor functional status. Patients (n = 590) with documented coronary artery disease were assessed for depressive symptoms, social support, and functional status while in hospital. They were reassessed for depression 1 month later during a home visit. Depression scores were lower at follow-up (p = 0.001), and improvement was more marked among those reporting more support (p <0.001). The social support effect was strongest among those with high levels of depression at baseline (p <0.001) and those with lower income (p = 0.01). Unexpectedly, social support was more strongly associated with improvement in younger patients (p = 0.01). Social support did not interact with gender, disease severity, or functional status. These findings are partially consistent with the notion that social support is most effective for those who are most vulnerable and/or have few coping resources. These findings also have implications for the design and interpretation of psychosocial interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)00961-9

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barefoot, J. C., Brummett, B. H., Clapp-Channing, N. E., Siegler, I. C., Vitaliano, P. P., Williams, R. B., & Mark, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-08
Volume
86
Issue
4
Pages
438-442
ISSN
0002-9149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984823109
Cited by
42
References
25
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01hl045702-05)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (P01 HL36587, R01-HL45702, P01HL036587, R01HL054780, R01-HL54780)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
social support, depressive symptoms, coronary artery disease, cardiac patients, treatment moderators, depression severity, functional status, income, age, psychosocial interventions, coping resources
MeSH terms
Aged, Coronary Disease, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Income, Male, Middle Aged, Psychosocial Deprivation, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Social Support, Linear Models

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