Why the study?
Does cardiac rehabilitation attendance improve health-enhancing behaviours 6 months following a first acute myocardial infarction compared to non-attendance?
Does cardiac rehabilitation attendance improve health-enhancing behaviours 6 months following a first acute myocardial infarction compared to non-attendance?
Cardiac rehabilitation attendance following a first AMI is associated with significantly greater adoption of positive lifestyle changes and improved self-reported health at 6 months.
BACKGROUND: The adoption of health-enhancing behaviours is essential to reduce the likelihood of recurrent coronary events. AIMS: This study assessed the magnitude of health behaviour change 6 months following a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and examined differences between cardiac rehabilitation attendees and non-attendees. METHODS: One hundred and six first AMI patients (males n=76, Australian-born n=71) participated in a 6-month follow-up of a descriptive longitudinal survey. Data on non-smoking behaviour, weight normalisation, adequate physical activity, low dietary fat intake, medication adherence and cardiac rehabilitation attendance were collected. The magnitude of change in health-enhancing behaviours from baseline to follow-up was calculated. RESULTS: Whilst there was an overall increase in health-enhancing behaviours at the 6-month follow-up (P<0.001), nonsmoking behaviour, low dietary fat intake and medication adherence were more likely to be achieved than adequate physical activity and weight normalisation. Attendees at cardiac rehabilitation were more likely to report positive lifestyle change (P=0.001) and feeling healthier (P=0.040) than non-attendees. CONCLUSION: The wide variation in the adoption of health-enhancing behaviours at the 6-month follow-up suggested that participants were selective about which behaviours they changed. Cardiac rehabilitation personnel need to emphasise the importance of undertaking all health-enhancing behaviours in order to maximise their multiplicative benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salamonson et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: