Persistence of socioeconomic inequalities in the knowledge of cardiovascular risk factors five years after coronary angiography.
Anastase Tchicaya, Nathalie Lorentz, Stefaan Demarest and 1 others
PMID 28696137WHAT IT FOUND
Five years after coronary angiography, more patients could cite three or more risk factors, but most could not, and lower education remained linked to poorer knowledge.
Nurses should not assume patients know diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol or obesity.
Key findings
01Five years after coronary angiography, more patients could cite at least three cardiovascular risk factors than at baseline, but knowledge remained low except for tobacco smoking.
02Educational level still predicted knowledge in 2013/2014, with tertiary-educated patients 2.33 times more likely than primary-educated patients to cite at least three risk factors, although education gaps were smaller than at baseline.
03Knowledge varied by diagnosis: patients with acute myocardial infarction were more able to cite at least three risk factors than patients with angina pectoris or ischaemic heart disease, but education gaps remained.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
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
The results are not representative of all patients with cardiovascular disease in Luxembourg. The response rate was 42%, and 548 returned questionnaires reported patient death, so the analysed group was only survivors with data at both time points. Knowledge was self-reported and assessed by one unprompted question, so it may miss what patients know but cannot state. The cut-off of at least three risk factors was chosen after the fact, so the main indicator was not pre-specified. Physical activity was rarely indicated by patients and was not included among the five risk factors assessed. The study observed changes over time but did not measure which education, rehabilitation or clinical care caused them.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Research Fund. The supplied text does not report a commercial sponsor or an author conflict-of-interest statement.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the increase in knowledge was caused by education, cardiac rehabilitation or clinical care. The study followed patients over time and did not randomise or measure a specific programme, so it shows association over time, not treatment effect.