American heart journal · 2010
Anger expression and risk of coronary heart disease: evidence from the Nova Scotia Health Survey.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Davidson Karina W, Mostofsky Elizabeth
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Whereas some studies have found that anger increases the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD), others found anger to be protective. Prior studies did not account for different types of anger expression, which may be associated with opposing levels of cardiovascular risk. This study examines whether distinct types of anger expression differentially predict incident CHD.
METHODS: We conducted a population-based, observational prospective study of 785 randomly selected Canadian men and women (50% each) aged 46 to 92 years and free of CHD in 1995. Using videotaped interviews, trained coders rated 3 types of anger expression: constructive anger (discussing anger to resolve the situation), destructive anger justification (blaming others for one's anger), and destructive anger rumination (brooding over an anger-inducing incident). The association between anger expression type per SD and incident CHD was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for sex, age, cardiovascular risk factors, depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety. Interactions of anger expression type and gender were also tested.
RESULTS: There were 115 incident CHD events (14.6%) during 6,584 person-years of follow-up. The association between clinically assessed constructive anger expression and CHD varied by gender (P for interaction = .02); higher levels were associated with a lower risk of incident CHD in men only (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.80, P < .001), whereas higher levels of destructive anger justification was associated with a 31% increased risk of CHD in both sexes (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.03-1.67, P = .03) and predicted CHD incidence independent of covariates and depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety.
CONCLUSIONS: Decreased constructive anger in men and increased destructive anger justification in men and women are associated with increased risk of 10-year incident CHD.
METHODS: We conducted a population-based, observational prospective study of 785 randomly selected Canadian men and women (50% each) aged 46 to 92 years and free of CHD in 1995. Using videotaped interviews, trained coders rated 3 types of anger expression: constructive anger (discussing anger to resolve the situation), destructive anger justification (blaming others for one's anger), and destructive anger rumination (brooding over an anger-inducing incident). The association between anger expression type per SD and incident CHD was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for sex, age, cardiovascular risk factors, depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety. Interactions of anger expression type and gender were also tested.
RESULTS: There were 115 incident CHD events (14.6%) during 6,584 person-years of follow-up. The association between clinically assessed constructive anger expression and CHD varied by gender (P for interaction = .02); higher levels were associated with a lower risk of incident CHD in men only (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.80, P < .001), whereas higher levels of destructive anger justification was associated with a 31% increased risk of CHD in both sexes (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.03-1.67, P = .03) and predicted CHD incidence independent of covariates and depressive symptoms, hostility, and anxiety.
CONCLUSIONS: Decreased constructive anger in men and increased destructive anger justification in men and women are associated with increased risk of 10-year incident CHD.