Long-Term Survival Differences Among Low-Anxious, High-Anxious and Repressive Copers Enrolled in the Montreal Heart Attack Readjustment Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study reports 5-year outcomes from the Montreal Heart Attack Readjustment Trial, a randomized, controlled trial of monthly telephone monitoring of psychological distress and home nursing visits in a sample of 1376 patients. It focuses on differences in long-term program impact associated with patients' sex and baseline anxiety/repressor coping styles. The potential mediating roles of medications, medical care utilization, and changes in negative emotions over the program are also explored. METHODS: Three subgroups were defined using median splits on the State Anxiety Inventory and Marlowe-Crowne Scale administered at baseline: truly low anxious, repressors, and high anxious. Quebec medicare data were used to track survival through 5 years. RESULTS: The trend toward worse prognosis in women in the treatment group and no evidence of treatment impact in men that were seen during the program year were maintained during the follow-up. Analysis of results in terms of coping styles showed a significant long-term survival benefit of treatment in highly anxious men, for whom reductions in somatic symptoms of depression mediated program impact. However, the program was also associated with significantly worse survival in repressors of both sexes. By the end of the program, repressors in the treatment group were more likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines and to have visited emergency rooms without being readmitted than those in the control group, suggesting that the program may have increased distress in repressors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' coping style is important in determining outcomes of psychosocial treatments and should be taken into account when tailoring interventions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".