Why the study?
Do patients with ischemic heart disease exhibit different emotional processing styles compared to individuals without cardiovascular disease?
Do patients with ischemic heart disease exhibit different emotional processing styles compared to individuals without cardiovascular disease?
Patients with ischemic heart disease demonstrate more negative emotional processing styles compared to healthy controls, highlighting the potential role of psychological factors in cardiovascular disease.
Negative emotional processing may warrant clinical attention in IHD; leaves open causal role and intervention effects in observational data.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most prevalent public health problem on a worldwide scale, and ischemic heart disease accounts for approximately one-half of these events in high-income countries. One of the most important risk factors for this disease is mental and psychological especially stressful experiences. AIM: This research was established to compare emotional processing, as a key factor in stress appraisal, between IHD patients and people with no cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Using simple sampling, fifty patients were selected from people who diagnosed as IHD in the hospital and referred for treatment after discharging care and treatment. Control group participants were selected as control group peoples, using neighbourhood controls selection. The Emotional Processing Scale was filled by all members of the two groups. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two groups on the EPS-25 total scores, as well as on emotional processing dimensions of signs of unprocessed emotion, unregulated emotion; avoidance and impoverished. Also, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the dimension of Suppression. The final step of regression revealed a β of 10.15 and 1.05 for AVO and IEE subscales respectively. CONCLUSION: The result showed that patients with IHD are using more negative emotional processing styles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kharamin et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: