A Survey of Coping Strategies With Stress in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Individuals Without a History of Fixed Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed at investigating the coping strategies with stress in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and individuals without a history of fixed MI and cardiovascular disorders. METHODS: This case-control crossover study was conducted from March 2015 to February 2016 on 220 patients with acute MI (MI patients) as case group and 220 patients without any history of MI and cardiovascular diseases as the control group using availability sampling method. To collect the required data, demographic information questionnaire, Holms-Raheh life stress inventory, perceived stress questionnaire, and coping inventory for stressful situations (CISS) were applied. RESULTS: On the basis of our findings, 118 patients (53.6%) with MI used emotion-focused coping strategy. Ninety-seven patients (82.2%) with MI who used emotion-focused coping strategy had negative perceived stress. Additionally, 71 patients (60.2%) with MI who had used emotion-focused coping strategy suffered from very high level of stress. CONCLUSION: The most MI patients had very high level of stress while most people in control group had high level of stress. Most MI patients that had very high level of stress cope with it in emotion-focused coping strategy and it proves that people with higher levels of stress are more likely to use inefficient coping strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".