Saeidi Mozhgan, Komasi Saeid, Compare Angelo
Cardiac Rehabilitation Center, Imam Ali Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Clinical Research Development Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
J Tehran Heart Cent. 2020 Jul;15(3):88-97. doi: 10.18502/jthc.v15i3.4217.
The etiologies and causal beliefs of heart disease are considered one of the 5 dimensions of health self-regulatory model. Thus, the present study aimed to review the literature and screen the appropriate tools for evaluating the causal beliefs and perceived heart risk factors (PHRFs). The review samples encompassed all published articles from 1992 to March 2017. A systematic search was conducted across 6 databases: the Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, EBSCO, ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. The qualitative evaluation of the articles was examined using the checklists of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) by 2 independent investigators. After the application of the criteria for inclusion in the study, 22 studies were obtained according to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 10 504 (50.5% male) patients at an average age of 57.85±10.75 years participated in 22 studies under review. The results of the systematic review showed that 22 tools were available to measure PHRFs. The instruments were categorized into 4 groups of valid scales (6 studies), invalid questionnaires (6 studies), checklists (3 studies), and open-ended single items (7 studies). Only 23.2% of the measuring instruments were sufficiently valid. The results of this systematic review showed that a limited number of valid tools were available to measure PHRFs. Considering the importance of studying cardiac patients' perception of the etiology of disease and the paucity of standards and valid grading scales, it seems necessary to design and provide tools with broader content that can cover all aspects of patients' beliefs.
心脏病的病因及因果信念被视为健康自我调节模型的五个维度之一。因此,本研究旨在回顾文献并筛选出评估因果信念和感知心脏危险因素(PHRFs)的合适工具。回顾样本涵盖了1992年至2017年3月期间发表的所有文章。通过6个数据库进行了系统检索:科学网、Scopus、Medline、EBSCO、ProQuest、PsycINFO和谷歌学术。由2名独立研究人员使用批判性评估技能计划(CASP)的清单对文章进行定性评估。在应用纳入研究的标准后,根据PRISMA指南获得了22项研究。共有10504名患者(50.5%为男性)参与了正在审查的22项研究,平均年龄为57.85±10.75岁。系统评价结果显示,有22种工具可用于测量PHRFs。这些工具分为4组:有效量表(6项研究)、无效问卷(6项研究)、清单(3项研究)和开放式单项(7项研究)。只有23.2%的测量工具具有足够的效度。该系统评价结果表明,可用于测量PHRFs的有效工具数量有限。考虑到研究心脏病患者对疾病病因认知的重要性以及标准和有效分级量表的匮乏,似乎有必要设计并提供内容更广泛、能够涵盖患者信念所有方面的工具。