PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 1, 2005Psychosomatic Medicine381 citations

Social Support and Coronary Heart Disease: Epidemiologic Evidence and Implications for Treatment

View Full Paper
HLHeather S. LettJBJames A. BlumenthalMBMichael A. Babyak

Key Points

  • To review theoretical frameworks and epidemiologic evidence regarding the influence of social support on the onset and progression of coronary heart disease.
  • Searched electronic databases MEDLINE (1966–2004) and PsycINFO (1872–2004) along with relevant reference lists to identify studies evaluating social support as a cardiovascular risk factor.

Structured PICO

Does low social support increase the risk of developing or progressing coronary heart disease in healthy populations and CHD patients?

P
Population
Healthy populations and patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD)
I
Intervention
Low social support
C
Comparator
Higher or normal social support
O
Outcome
Development and progression of coronary heart disease (CHD events)hard clinical

Low social support is associated with a 1.5 to 2.0-fold increased risk of CHD events, though evidence that improving social support reduces these events remains limited.

Limitations

  • Substantial variability in the conceptualization and measurement of social support
  • Few studies simultaneously compare differing types of support

Abstract

Objective: The present paper reviews theories of social support and evidence for the role of social support in the development and progression of coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods: Articles for the primary review of social support as a risk factor were identified with MEDLINE (1966–2004) and PsychINFO (1872–2004). Reviews of bibliographies also were used to identify relevant articles. Results: In general, evidence suggests that low social support confers a risk of 1.5 to 2.0 in both healthy populations and in patients with established CHD. However, there is substantial variability in the manner in which social support is conceptualized and measured. In addition, few studies have simultaneously compared differing types of support. Conclusions: Although low levels of support are associated with increased risk for CHD events, it is not clear what types of support are most associated with clinical outcomes in healthy persons and CHD patients. The development of a consensus in the conceptualization and measurement of social support is needed to examine which types of support are most likely to be associated with adverse CHD outcomes. There also is little evidence that improving low social support reduces CHD events. AMI = acute myocardial infarction; ANS = autonomic nervous system; CHD = coronary heart disease; ENRICHD = Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease; HPA = hypothalamic pituitary adrenal; SES = socioeconomic status; SNS = sympathetic nervous system.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lett et al. (2005) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0fd0329e54838161fd39cchttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000188393.73571.0a
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper