June 1, 2021Open Access

Application of health education and promotion theory-based interventions on patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review

BMBahram MohebbiIran University of Medical Sciences MSMaryam SabouriShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences ATAzar TolTehran University of Medical Sciences

Structured PICO

Do health education and promotion theory-based interventions improve educational, clinical, and practical outcomes in adult patients with cardiovascular disease?

Population

35 studies assessing adult patients (≥18 years) with cardiovascular disease (excluding congenital diseases), mean age ranging from 37 to 65 years.

Intervention

Health education and promotion theory-based interventions (e.g., Health Belief Model, BAZNEF, Theory of Planned Behavior, Transtheoretical Model, Social Cognitive Theory, Continuous Care Model).

Comparator

Routine hospital care or standard care.

Outcome

Educational, clinical, and practical outcomes related to cardiovascular diseases.

Health education and promotion theory-based interventions appear beneficial in improving educational, clinical, and practical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adopting healthy behaviors can lead to better outcomes which can deeply impact cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) development; consequently, tailoring appropriate theory-based interventions may improve various outcomes among patients at CV risks. This study aimed to assess published researches on the application of health education and promotion of intrapersonal and interpersonal theories/models' interventions on patients with CVD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct, and SID, Magiran databases for English and Persian studies were searched using relevant keywords, respectively. We searched for interventional studies published with no time limits until the end of 2020 assessing the application of health education and promotion theories/models interventions on adult patients with CVDs. Two reviewers individually reviewed abstracts/full-text articles to assess inclusion according to predefined criteria. In case of discrepancy between the two researchers, a third expert was requested to assess papers, and final selection decision was made based on the agreement among the three evaluators. This systematic review was conducted using the following data extraction steps and assessing the quality of the studies and results. RESULTS: From 60 articles, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. Most interventions improved at least some educational including models constructs (20%), clinical (14.2%), and practical (88.5%) outcome related to CVDs. It is noted that attention to educational, practical, and clinical outcomes was focused in published papers, respectively. Furthermore, based on the study categorization using models, some CVDs and theories/models were more concerned compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: Health education and promotion theory-based interventions on patients with CVD appeared beneficial in the most published paper.

اسأل الذكاء الاصطناعي

Bookmark

View Full Paper