Occupational Performance and Quality of Life in Individuals With Cardiovascular Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Ala'a Jaber, Raja'a Alzoubi, Sukainah Rawashdeh and 4 others
People with cardiovascular conditions rated their daily performance in the lower-moderate range, with self-care—especially mobility, sleep, and stairs—hit hardest.
Better physical health predicted better performance; better psychological health predicted greater satisfaction.
Key findings
1Occupational performance (mean 4.7) and satisfaction (mean 4.5) on a 1–10 scale fell in the lower-moderate range. Of 213 reported challenges, 66.2% were in self-care; the most common were functional mobility (50% of self-care problems), rest and sleep (48.1%), and climbing stairs (44.2%).
2COPM performance and satisfaction were positively correlated with the physical (rs = 0.36), psychological (rs = 0.34–0.39), and environment (rs = 0.29–0.30) quality-of-life domains.
3In exploratory regression, the physical quality-of-life domain was the only significant predictor of COPM performance (R² = 0.158, p = 0.005); psychological quality of life and playing sports predicted satisfaction (R² = 0.232, p = 0.048).
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Cross-sectional design: no cause-and-effect can be drawn from the correlations or regression (the authors state this explicitly). Small sample (52) with convenience sampling; the authors note this limits the regression analysis with multiple predictors. 82.7% of participants were male, and recruitment via social media may have skewed the sample toward younger, tech-literate, higher-socioeconomic individuals. All data were collected by phone, which the authors acknowledge may introduce information bias and prevents observation of nonverbal cues. COPM is a subjective self-report measure; no objective performance or movement assessment was included. The regression was exploratory with stepwise selection and no adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Declared interests
Funded by Jordan University of Science and Technology and Erasmus+. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the regression results as evidence that improving physical or psychological health will improve occupational performance. The design is cross-sectional with 52 participants, so the 'predictors' are associations in a single snapshot, not demonstrated causal effects. The authors themselves state that cause-and-effect cannot be derived from this study.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →