Traumatic Stress, Attachment Style, and Health Outcomes in Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research on psychosocial risk factors in cardiovascular disease (CVD) has identified traumatic stress and attachment style as independent risk factors for the development of CVD and poor prognosis for those with established CVD. Exploring the interrelationships between these variables will inform psychosocial risk factor modeling and potential avenues for intervention. Therefore, the hypothesis that attachment style is related to health outcomes among CR patients and that traumatic stress mediates this relationship was tested. METHODS: = 201) completed validated self-report measures of traumatic stress and attachment style at baseline (program intake). Health outcomes were assessed at baseline and 3 months, including anxiety, depression, quality of life, fasting blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and cholesterol (HDL ratio). Multivariate structural equation modeling was used to fit the data. RESULTS: Of the 201 participants, 42 (21%) had trauma scores indicating the probable presence of posttraumatic stress disorder. Via greater levels of traumatic stress, greater attachment anxiety at baseline was indirectly related to greater anxiety, depression, fasting blood glucose, and HbA1c, and poorer physical and mental quality of life. There were no significant indirect effects on HDL ratios. CONCLUSION: Greater attachment anxiety predicted greater traumatic stress; this, in turn, predicted poorer health outcomes. Screening and treatment for these constructs in CVD patients is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".