Spontaneous, elicited and cued causal attributions in the year following a first myocardial infarction

Gudmundsdóttir, Hafrún; Johnston, Marie; Johnston, Derek; Foulkes, Joan

doi:10.1348/135910701169070

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall ranking of causes in this study was comparable with several previous reports, with stress, smoking, and high blood pressure being the most frequently endorsed factors [5,6,9]. The proportion of patients endorsing these causes was higher than in some other studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Patients' beliefs about the causes of heart disease: relationships with risk factors, sex and socio-economic status

Perkins-Porras

Whitehead

Steptoe

2006

European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Patients' beliefs about the causes of heart disease: relationships with risk factors, sex and socio-economic status

Perkins-Porras

Whitehead

Steptoe

2006

European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in keeping with a previous study, which examined different approaches to examining different methods of eliciting causal beliefs for MI (Gudmundsdottir et al, 2001), and with a systematic review of the literature as a whole (French et al, 2001). However, although there are similarities in the patterns of responses of whole samples, for these measures to demonstrate reliability, and thus allow validity, it is necessary for individuals to demonstrate consistency in patterns How valid are measures of beliefs about the causes of illness?…”

Section: Causal Beliefs Elicited By Open-ended and Structured Questiosupporting

confidence: 77%

“…A direct comparison of these two methods with 100 MI patients showed that the use of structured questionnaires resulted in more causes being endorsed (Gudmundsdottir et al, 2001). Despite this, the ordering of attributions in terms of which were most prevalent, did not differ between the two methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Several studies have been conducted where the causal attributions of clinical populations for illness events were elicited using more than one method, and the results compared with the aim of investigating the validity of different methods of assessing attributions (Berckman & Austin, 1993;De Valle & Norman, 1992;Faller, Schilling & Lang, 1995;Gudmundsdottir, H. Johnston, M. Johnston & Foulkes, 2001;Janoff-Bulman & Wortman, 1977;Landrine & Klonoff, 1994;Taylor, Lichtman & Wood, 1984;Tennen, Affleck & Gershman, 1986;Vieyra, Tennen, Affleck, Allen & McCann, 1990). The two methods were usually a frequency count of attributions made during an interview, and questionnaire ratings of how important each of a list of attributions have been.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How valid are measures of beliefs about the causes of illness? The example of myocardial infarction

French¹,

Marteau²,

Senior³

et al. 2005

Psychology & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) studies of causal attributions for laboratory events, there is little evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for attribution measures. We report the first MTMM study to investigate the validity of two methods of eliciting causal beliefs for an illness, specifically, myocardial infarction. Adult respondents (N = 107) listed causes of MI, then completed questionnaire rating scales for causal beliefs for MI. Measures were compared using both Campbell and Fiske's approach to MTMM. analyses, and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis approach. Neither single item measures causal beliefs, nor scales of causal beliefs derived using exploratory factor analysis provided much evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that a model containing only causal belief factors provided a moderately good fit to the data. Adding a questionnaire method factor significantly improved the fit of the model, as well as substantially changing the pattern of factor loadings: loadings of questionnaire items on causal belief factors were markedly reduced. These results highlight major problems with the measurement of causal beliefs, and in particular question the validity of factor analysis of questionnaire measures of causal beliefs. They also suggest that at least some of the MI causal belief factors reported in the literature are artefacts of common questionnaire method variance

show abstract

“…The relative paucity of attributional statements is similar to that seen in a study of spontaneous causal attributions made by patients following a myocardial infarction (23). People usually engage in causal search when they encounter unexpected, negative events (10).…”

Section: Research Question 4: Attributions and Psychological Adjustmentsupporting

confidence: 53%

Idiosyncratic Personal Explanations for Blood Glucose Events Are Associated With Poorer Self-Management and Glycemic Control in Adult Patients With Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes

Wearden

Hynd²,

Smith³

et al. 2006

Diabetes Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE -To examine whether spontaneous causal attributions for blood glucose events were associated with blood glucose control (HbA 1c [A1C]), self-management, and adjustment to diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-A total of 62 adults (31 female) with type 1 diabetes, recruited from a diabetes specialist clinic, with a mean age of 42.3 years and a mean illness duration of 19.6 years, were interviewed about the onset, history, course, and management of their diabetes. Spontaneous causal attributions for fluctuations in blood glucose level were extracted from the interviews and coded in accordance with the Leeds Attributional Coding System. Participants completed questionnaire measures of anxiety, depression, and appraisal of diabetes. Glycemic control (A1C) at the time of interview and 1 year later was extracted from notes.RESULTS -Participants who made proportionally more personal, or idiosyncratic, explanations for blood glucose fluctuations or events (such as hypoglycemic episodes) had higher A1C levels at time 1 and 1 year later and were judged to manage their diabetes less well. Furthermore, the association between personal attributions and A1C was partly accounted for by selfmanagement behavior. Participants who made personal and stable attributions appraised their diabetes more negatively.CONCLUSIONS -Clinicians should be sensitive to patients' causal explanations for blood glucose events. Helping patients consider alternative explanations may produce benefits in terms of better management and control of diabetes.

show abstract

Spontaneous, elicited and cued causal attributions in the year following a first myocardial infarction

Cited by 15 publications

References 28 publications

Patients' beliefs about the causes of heart disease: relationships with risk factors, sex and socio-economic status

Patients' beliefs about the causes of heart disease: relationships with risk factors, sex and socio-economic status

How valid are measures of beliefs about the causes of illness? The example of myocardial infarction

Idiosyncratic Personal Explanations for Blood Glucose Events Are Associated With Poorer Self-Management and Glycemic Control in Adult Patients With Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About