Illness perception in patients with coronary artery disease: A systematic review

Ahmed Mohammad Al-Smadi*, Ala Ashour, Issa Hweidi, Besher Gharaibeh, Donna Fitzsimons

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review that investigates the differences in illness perception with age and gender in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease. Previous studies show some discrepancies regarding the influence of age and gender on the specific dimensions of coronary artery disease patients' illness perception. A systematic review using a narrative synthesis process included preliminary synthesis, exploration of relationships and assessment of the robustness of the synthesis and findings was conducted. Search terms were used to identify research studies published between 1996 and December 2014 across four key databases: CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science. A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. The review found that men had a stronger perception that their own behaviour had caused their illness than women. In addition, older patients had lower perceptions of the consequences and chronicity of their illness. This analysis concludes that some dimensions of illness perception vary according to age and gender of patients with coronary artery disease. These differences should be taken into consideration, particularly when providing health education and cardiac rehabilitation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)633-648
Number of pages16
JournalInternational Journal of Nursing Practice
Volume22
Issue number6
Early online date29 Sep 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Dec 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • age
  • coronary artery disease
  • gender
  • perception of illness
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Illness perception in patients with coronary artery disease: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this