Comparison of Coping Responses to Symptoms Between First-Time Sufferers and Those With a Previous History of Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how experience with a previous acute myocardial infarction (AMI) impacts individuals' reactions to symptoms of a recurrent episode. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the use of coping strategies during an acute cardiac event in patients experiencing a first AMI with those experiencing a recurrent AMI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Secondary data analyses were performed to examine differences in the use of coping strategies between individuals with and without a history of AMI. Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare those with (n = 26) and without (n = 109) a previous AMI with respect to 15 coping strategies, each of which was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of AMI were more likely to use prescribed medications to deal with their symptoms than were patients who did not have a previous AMI (M = 1.5 and 0.20; median = 2.0 and 0.0, respectively; P < .001). However, patients who had no previous AMI were more likely to respond by taking nonprescription medications (M = 0.90 and 0.60; median = 1.0 and 0.0, respectively; P = .04). The results suggest that patients with and without a history of AMI tend to respond to their symptoms with similar coping strategies. When differences occurred, patients with and without a history of AMI differed only with respect to the type of self-medication choices they made. Implications pertaining to these findings are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".