Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 240

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Psychological rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: multicentre randomised controlled trial

Open access
Jones, D A, West, R R·1996·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To evaluate rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. Design : Randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation in unselected myocardial infarction patients in six centres, baseline data being collected on admission and by structured interview (of patients and spouses) shortly after discharge and outcome being assessed by structured interview at six months and clinical examination at 12 months. Setting : Six district general hospitals. Subjects : All 2328 eligible patients admitted over two years with confirmed myocardial infarction and discharged home within 28 days. Interventions : Rehabilitation programmes comprising psychological therapy, counselling, relaxation training, and stress management training over seven weekly group outpatient sessions for patients and spouses. Main outcome measures : Anxiety, depression, quality of life, morbidity, use of medication, and mortality. Results : At six months there were no significant differences between rehabilitation patients and controls in reported anxiety (prevalence 33%) or depression (19%). Rehabilitation patients reported a lower frequency of angina (median three versus four episodes a week), medication, and physical activity. At 12 months there were no differences in clinical complications, clinical sequelae, or mortality. Conclusions : Rehabilitation programmes based on psychological therapy, counselling, relaxation training, and stress management seem to offer little objective benefit to patients who have experienced myocardial infarction compared with previous reports of smaller trials. Key messages: In this series there were no important differences by age, sex, hospital, or baseline anxiety or depression At six months the prevalence rates of clinical anxiety and depression remained high (33% and 19% respectively) Patients and spouses rated programmes highly, which suggests a “quality of care” role for rehabilitation

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmj.313.7071.1517

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 240

Metadata

Authors
Jones, D. A., & West, R. R.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1996-12-14
Volume
313
Issue
7071
Pages
1517-1521
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2036636602
Cited by
240
References
0
FWCI
10.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Psychological rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: multicentre randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.313.7071.1517
The paper
Jones, D. A., & West, R. R. (1996). Psychological rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7071.1517

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.