Improving outcomes after myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial evaluating effects of a telephone follow-up intervention

Abstract

A nurse-led systematic telephone follow-up intervention significantly improved the physical dimension of health-related quality of life in patients in the intervention group compared with usual care patients. Participation in this intervention also seemed to promote health behaviour change in patients after acute myocardial infarction.

Nurse-Led Telephone Interventions for People with Cardiac Disease: A Review of the Research Literature

“…No study reported negative results. Of the nine studies that reported no differences detected, eight reported the use of a psychometric assessments that lacked sensitivity or reliability [6,16,18,26,28,45,49,57], seven of the studies over estimated the effects of the intervention including the expertise of the nurse conducting the intervention or the number of phone calls received [6,16,18,28,43,49,67], and six did not report justification of the sample size [6,16,18,28,43,49]. Another concern was the design of the studies, three studies performed post testing measures only [6,16,18].…”

Anxiety and depression after acute myocardial infarction: an 18-month follow-up study with repeated measures and comparison with a reference population

“…Data from all participants were collected from medical records and by self-reports through mailed questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after discharge, with at most one reminder at each of these time points. There were no significant effects of the intervention on the psychological dimensions of the HRQOL [23,24]. Furthermore, there were no baseline differences between the groups, or any effects of the intervention on the HADS subscales at each of the different measurement points 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after discharge (results not published).…”

Effect of patient education in the management of coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Therefore, we extracted data on the overall drop out rate at follow up. 23,25,28,31,35,39,43,44 There was no difference between the groups in pooled overall drop outs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.27, p ¼ 0.80; Figure 2e). …”