Cited by 31Cardiac Health and Mental HealthHeart rate and cardiovascular healthHealth Education and Validation

Randomized controlled trial of a lay‐facilitated angina management programme

Open access
Furze, Gill, Cox, Helen, Morton, Veronica, Chuang, Ling‐Hsiang, Lewin, Robert J.P., Nelson, Pauline, Carty, Richard, Norris, Heather +2 more·2012·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

furze g., cox h., morton v., chuang l.‐h., lewin r.j.p., nelson p., carty r., norris h., patel n. & elton p. (2012) Randomized controlled trial of a lay‐facilitated angina management programme. Journal of Advanced Nursing68(10), 2267–2279. Aims. This article reports a randomized controlled trial of lay‐facilitated angina management (registered trial acronym: LAMP). Background. Previously, a nurse‐facilitated angina programme was shown to reduce angina while increasing physical activity, however most people with angina do not receive a cardiac rehabilitation or self‐management programme. Lay people are increasingly being trained to facilitate self‐management programmes. Design. A randomized controlled trial comparing a lay‐facilitated angina management programme with routine care from an angina nurse specialist. Methods. Participants with new stable angina were randomized to the angina management programme (intervention: 70 participants) or advice from an angina nurse specialist (control: 72 participants). Primary outcome was angina frequency at 6 months; secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months included: risk factors, physical functioning, anxiety, depression, angina misconceptions and cost utility. Follow‐up was complete in March 2009. Analysis was by intention‐to‐treat; blind to group allocation. Results. There was no important difference in angina frequency at 6 months. Secondary outcomes, assessed by either linear or logistic regression models, demonstrated important differences favouring the intervention group, at 3 months for: Anxiety, angina misconceptions and for exercise report; and at 6 months for: Anxiety; Depression; and angina misconceptions. The intervention was considered cost‐effective. Conclusion. The angina management programme produced some superior benefits when compared to advice from a specialist nurse.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05920.x

Cites

46 of 46 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?

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. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2008 London NICE 27905712

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Furze, G., Cox, H., Morton, V., Chuang, L., Lewin, R. J. P., Nelson, P., Carty, R., Norris, H., Patel, N., & Elton, P.
Affiliations
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • British Heart Foundation (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Furze, Gill
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01-10
Volume
68
Issue
10
Pages
2267-2279
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W1798457041
Cited by
31
References
46
Citations by year
2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Heart Foundation (PG05/048)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
stable angina, angina frequency, anxiety, depression, physical activity, cost-effectiveness, cardiac rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Angina Pectoris, Community Health Workers, Cost-Benefit Analysis, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Clinicians, Patient Care Management, Prospective Studies, Regression Analysis, Self Care, Social Support, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome

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