Why the study?
What are the regional and socio-demographic predictors of social support, well-being, and health-related quality of life in European women following myocardial infarction?
What are the regional and socio-demographic predictors of social support, well-being, and health-related quality of life in European women following myocardial infarction?
There are significant regional and age-related disparities in health-related quality of life and social support among European women recovering from myocardial infarction, with Eastern European and older women reporting worse outcomes.
Eastern European and older women post-MI may need tailored support; hypothesis-generating for prospective regional intervention trials.
BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is a major contributor to women's health problems. DESIGN: Self-perceived social support, well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were documented in the cross-sectional HeartQoL survey of European women one and six months after a myocardial infarction. METHODS: European women were recruited in 18 European countries and grouped into four geographical regions (Southern Europe, Northern Europe, Western Europe and Eastern Europe). Continuous socio-demographic variables and categorical variables were compared by age and region with ANOVA and χ(2), respectively; multiple regression models were used to identify predictors of social support, well-being and HRQL. RESULTS: Women living in the Eastern European region rated social support, well-being and HRQL significantly lower than women in the other regions. Older women had lower physical HRQL scores than younger women. Eastern European women rated social support, well-being and HRQL significantly lower than women in the other regions. Prediction of the dependent variables (social support, well-being and HRQL) by socio-demographic factors varied by total group, in the older age group, and by region; body mass index and managerial responsibility were the most consistent significant predictors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lidell et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: