Cited by 111Cardiac Health and Mental HealthCancer survivorship and careAcute Myocardial Infarction Research

Anxiety and depression after acute myocardial infarction: an 18-month follow-up study with repeated measures and comparison with a reference population

Hanssen, Tove Aminda, Nordrehaug, Jan Erik, Eide, Geir Egil, Bjelland, Ingvar, Rokne, Berit·2009·European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been substantial improvement in coronary care and a corresponding reduction in mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Some studies suggest that improved prognosis has led to reduced levels of anxiety and depression after AMI, in both the short and long term. The aims of this study were to assess symptoms of anxiety and depression from the acute event to 18 months following AMI, and to compare results with levels in the Norwegian reference population. DESIGN AND METHODS: The progress of 288 patients was monitored using self-reports 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after AMI. Anxiety and depression were measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Reference population data were obtained from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study 1995-1997 (the HUNT 2 Study). RESULTS: At baseline, 19.7 and 13.6% of AMI patients reported high levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms, respectively. At baseline, AMI patients were more anxious, but not more depressed, when compared with the reference population (P<0.001 and P = 0.092, respectively). After 3-18 months, AMI patients' levels of anxiety and depression were not higher than levels in the reference population. Anxiety and depression at baseline and after 3 months were the best predictors of anxiety and depression after 18 months, although complications, bed days and lifestyle improvement also significantly predicted depression after 18 months. CONCLUSION: Initially, AMI patients had higher levels of anxiety, but not depressive symptoms. After 3-18 months, these patients were not more anxious or depressed than the Norwegian reference population.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/hjr.0b013e32832e4206

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A substantial spontaneous improvement has been reported for MI patients in symptoms of both anxiety and depression over time.

    “In addition, a substantial spontaneous improvement has been reported for MI patients in symptoms of both anxiety and depression over time [47].”

    From Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for symptoms of depression and anxiety among patients with a recent myocardial infarction: The u-care heart randomized Controlled trial (2018) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Results (‘Symptoms of anxiety and depression and comparison with the reference population’; page unavailable) report that anxiety symptoms declined during follow-up. They do not show a substantial sustained improvement in depression: its prevalence was 13.6% at baseline and 13.7% at 18 months. The source therefore supports improvement in anxiety, but not the claim of substantial improvement in both symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Thombs BD, Bass EB, Ford DE, Stewart KJ, Tsilidis KK, Patel U, et al. Prevalence of depression in survivors of acute myocardial infarction. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21:30-38.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanssen, T. A., Nordrehaug, J. E., Eide, G. E., Bjelland, I., & Rokne, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • Department of Heart Disease,
  • Centre for Clinical Research,
  • Haukeland University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Hanssen, Tove Aminda
Venue
European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation
Published
2009-12
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
651-659
ISSN
1741-8267 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095502697
Cited by
111
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Haukeland Universitetssjukehus
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Keywords
acute myocardial infarction, anxiety, depression, depressive symptoms, long-term follow-up, predictors of depression, in-hospital complications, length of hospital stay, lifestyle modification, reference population comparison
MeSH terms
Aged, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Norway, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Linear Models, Case-Control Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment

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