Display options
Share it on

PLoS One. 2013 Sep 05;8(9):e73459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073459. eCollection 2013.

Psychological interventions for patients with coronary heart disease and their partners: a systematic review.

PloS one

Jane Reid, Chantal F Ski, David R Thompson

Affiliations

  1. Cardiovascular Research Centre, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

PMID: 24039950 PMCID: PMC3764157 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073459

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence that patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and their partners report significant psychological distress, and suggestions that involving partners in interventions alleviates such distress, no systematic reviews have examined this. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for patients with CHD and their partners.

METHODS: CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were searched through October 2012. Randomized controlled trials evaluating psychological interventions for patients with CHD and their partners were included. Selection of studies, study appraisal, data extraction and analysis were undertaken using standard methods.

RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 673 participants were included, two of which indicated that psychological interventions result in modest improvements in patients' depressive symptoms, anxiety, knowledge of disease and treatment, and satisfaction with care, and in partners' anxiety, knowledge and satisfaction. In partners, there was a non-significant trend for improvements in depressive symptoms. One study showed a beneficial effect on blood pressure. There was no evidence of a significant effect on mortality, morbidity or cardiovascular risk factors for patients or social support for patients and partner.

CONCLUSIONS: The small number of studies included in the review had generally poor methodology, as shown by the risk of bias, and were performed over 10 years ago. As only two of the seven studies resulted in modest improvements in outcomes, no firm conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of such interventions in this population.

References

  1. Soc Sci Med. 1987;24(4):359-70 - PubMed
  2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 07;(9):CD008012 - PubMed
  3. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Jan;21(1):30-8 - PubMed
  4. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2001 Jul;51(7):276-80 - PubMed
  5. Ann Behav Med. 2010 Dec;40(3):325-42 - PubMed
  6. Eur Heart J. 2007 Dec;28(24):2972-84 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2012 Sep;11(3):265-75 - PubMed
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6 - PubMed
  9. Eur Heart J. 2006 Dec;27(23):2763-74 - PubMed
  10. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79(3):136-48 - PubMed
  11. Psychosom Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;66(6):802-13 - PubMed
  12. Psychosom Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;66(6):814-22 - PubMed
  13. J Adv Nurs. 1990 Sep;15(9):1064-9 - PubMed
  14. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008 Dec;43(12):983-98 - PubMed
  15. J Psychosom Res. 1990;34(3):249-58 - PubMed
  16. Psychosom Med. 2010 Jul;72(6):563-9 - PubMed
  17. J Adv Nurs. 1989 Apr;14(4):291-7 - PubMed
  18. Heart Lung. 2002 May-Jun;31(3):199-206 - PubMed
  19. J Psychosom Res. 1990;34(3):237-48 - PubMed
  20. Psychosom Med. 1999 Mar-Apr;61(2):225-33 - PubMed
  21. Health Psychol. 2004 Nov;23(6):599-611 - PubMed
  22. Psychother Psychosom. 2011;80(5):275-86 - PubMed
  23. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Aug 10;(8):CD002902 - PubMed
  24. Patient Educ Couns. 1984;6(4):169-77 - PubMed
  25. Appl Nurs Res. 2000 Aug;13(3):142-50 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types