Reducing the time-lag between onset of chest pain and seeking professional medical help: a theory-based review

Article English OPEN
Baxter, Susan K ; Allmark, Peter (2013)
  • Publisher: BioMed Central
  • Journal: BMC Medical Research Methodology, volume 13, pages 15-15 (eissn: 1471-2288)
  • Related identifiers: pmc: PMC3570316, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-15
  • Subject: Epidemiology | Research Article | Cardiac delay | Chest pain | Systematic review | Theory-based review

Background: Research suggests that there are a number of factors which can be associated with delay in a patient\ud seeking professional help following chest pain, including demographic and social factors. These factors may have\ud an adverse impact on the efficacy of interventions which to date have had limited success in improving patient\ud action times. Theory-based methods of review are becoming increasingly recognised as important additions to\ud conventional systematic review methods. They can be useful to gain additional insights into the characteristics of\ud effective interventions by uncovering complex underlying mechanisms.\ud \ud Methods: This paper describes the further analysis of research papers identified in a conventional systematic review of published evidence. The aim of this work was to investigate the theoretical frameworks underpinning studies\ud exploring the issue of why people having a heart attack delay seeking professional medical help. The study used\ud standard review methods to identify papers meeting the inclusion criterion, and carried out a synthesis of data\ud relating to theoretical underpinnings.\ud \ud Results: Thirty six papers from the 53 in the original systematic review referred to a particular theoretical\ud perspective, or contained data which related to theoretical assumptions. The most frequently mentioned theory\ud was the self-regulatory model of illness behaviour. Papers reported the potential significance of aspects of this\ud model including different coping mechanisms, strategies of denial and varying models of treatment seeking.\ud Studies also drew attention to the potential role of belief systems, applied elements of attachment theory, and\ud referred to models of maintaining integrity, ways of knowing, and the influence of gender.\ud \ud Conclusions: The review highlights the need to examine an individual’s subjective experience of and response to\ud health threats, and confirms the gap between knowledge and changed behaviour. Interventions face key challenges if they are to influence patient perceptions regarding seriousness of symptoms; varying processes of coping; and obstacles created by patient perceptions of their role and responsibilities. A theoretical approach to review of these papers provides additional insight into the assumptions underpinning interventions, and illuminates factors which may impact on their efficacy. The method thus offers a useful supplement to conventional systematic review methods.
  • References (64)
    64 references, page 1 of 7

    1. Finn JC, Bett JHN, Shilton TR, Cunningham C, Thompson PL: Patient delay in responding to symptoms of possible heart attack: can we reduce time to care? Med J Aus 2007, 187:293-298.

    2. Moser DK, Kimble LP, Alberts MJ, Alonzo A, Croft JB, Dracup K, et al: Reducing delay in seeking treatment by patients with acute coronary syndrome and stroke: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on cardiovascular nursing and stroke council. Circulation 2006, 114:168-182.

    3. Luepker RV: Delay in acute myocardial infarction: why don't they come to the hospital more quickly and what can we do to reduce delay? Am Heart J 2005, 150:368-370.

    4. Allmark P, Todd A, Macintosh M, Gee M: Reducing the time-lag between onset of chest pain that could be due to a heart attack and seeking professional medical help. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University; 2011.

    5. Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.

    6. Nilsen P: The how and why of community-based injury prevention: a conceptual and evaluation model. Safety Sci 2007, 45:501-521.

    7. Blamey A, Mackenzie M: Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges. Evaluation 2007, 13:439-455.

    8. Foss Hansen H: Choosing evaluation models: a discussion on evaluation design. Evaluation 2005, 11:447-462.

    9. Rossi P, Lipsey M, Freeman H: Evaluation - A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage; 2004.

    10. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski A, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar VS, Grimmer K: A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Meth 2004, 4:22. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-22.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark