↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002902.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Whalley B, Rees K, Davies P, Bennett P, Ebrahim S, Liu Z, West R, Moxham T, Thompson DR, Taylor RS, Whalley, Ben, Rees, Karen, Davies, Philippa, Bennett, Paul, Ebrahim, Shah, Liu, Zulian, West, Robert, Moxham, Tiffany, Thompson, David R, Taylor, Rod S, Rees, K, Bennett, P, Vedhara, K, West, R, Davey, Smith G, Ebrahim, S

Abstract

Psychological symptoms are strongly associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), and many psychological treatments are offered following cardiac events or procedures. Update the existing Cochrane review to (1) determine the independent effects of psychological interventions in patients with CHD (principal outcome measures included total or cardiac-related mortality, cardiac morbidity, depression, and anxiety) and (2) explore study-level predictors of the impact of these interventions. The original review searched Cochrane Controleed Trials Register (CCTR, Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to December 2001. This was updated by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 2001 to January 2009. In addition, we searched reference lists of papers, and expert advice was sought for the original and update review. Randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions compared to usual care, administered by trained staff. Only studies estimating the independent effect of the psychological component with a minimum follow-up of six months. Adults with specific diagnosis of CHD. Titles and abstracts of all references screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently; data extracted by the lead author and checked by a second reviewer. Authors contacted where possible to obtain missing information. There was no strong evidence that psychological intervention reduced total deaths, risk of revascularisation, or non-fatal infarction. Amongst a smaller group of studies reporting cardiac mortality there was a modest positive effect of psychological intervention (relative risk: 0.80 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.00)). Furthermore, psychological intervention did result in small/moderate improvements in depression, standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.21 (95% CI -0.35, -0.08) and anxiety, SMD: -0.25 (95% CI -0.48 to -0.03). Results for mortality indicated some evidence of small-study bias, though results for other outcomes did not. Meta regression analyses revealed four significant predictors of intervention effects on depression were found: (1) an aim to treat type-A behaviours (ß = -0.32, p = 0.03) were more effective than other interventions. In contrast, interventions which (2) aimed to educate patients about cardiac risk factors (ß = 0.23, p = 0.03), (3) included client-led discussion and emotional support as core therapeutic components (ß = 0.31, p < 0.01), or (4) included family members in the treatment process (ß = 0.26, p < 0.01) were significantly less effective. Psychological treatments appear effective in treating psychological symptoms of CHD patients. Uncertainly remains regarding the subgroups of patients who would benefit most from treatment and the characteristics of successful interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 5%
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
South Africa 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 63 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 77%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 75%
Researcher 50 62%
Student > Bachelor 44 54%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 36%
Other 86 106%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 149%
Psychology 114 141%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 26%
Social Sciences 13 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Other 37 46%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#9,293,766
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,767
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,056
of 277,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#182
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.