Why the study?
How do Type A behavior pattern scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey differ among normal Danish adults, cardiology patients, and physicians?
How do Type A behavior pattern scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey differ among normal Danish adults, cardiology patients, and physicians?
The study establishes normal values for Type A behavior patterns in Denmark and identifies elevated speed and impatience (Factor S) in cardiovascular patients and physicians.
Does not support practice changes in Type A assessment; cross-sectional data leave causal cardiovascular links hypothesis-generating.
The Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) was administered to a normal population of randomly selected Danish adults, to patients consulting a cardiologist, and to physicians in order to compare those groups in terms of their coronary-prone (Type A) behaviour patterns. The standard procedure of rating the JAS was used in order to obtain scores for each of the four subscales: Type A (time urgency and ambitiousness), Factor S (speed and impatience) Factor H (hard-driving and competitive) and Factor J (job involvement). Gender differences were observed in the normal population for each of the four subscale scores, and age-related differences were obtained for Factor J. Elevated scores for Factor S were obtained by physicians and by people in the population who had a cardiovascular disorder. Physicians had also elevated scores for Factor J, whereas their Factor H scores tended to be reduced. No reliable differences in JAS subscale scores were observed between four groups of heart patients (i.e. angina pectoris, arterial hypertension, atrial fibrillation and atherosclerosis), although there was a tendency for Factor J to be elevated in atherosclerosis. The findings provide normal values for JAS scores in Danish men and women, and suggest that some facets of coronary-prone behaviour may be enhanced in Danish high-risk groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sterndorff et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: