Association of marital/partner status and patient-reported outcomes following myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Little is known about the relationship between marital/partner status and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following myocardial infarction (MI). We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis and explored potential sex differences. Methods and results We searched five databases (Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) from inception to 27 July 2022. Peer-reviewed studies of MI patients that evaluated marital/partner status as an independent variable and reported its associations with defined PROMs were eligible for inclusion. Results for eligible studies were classified into four pre-specified outcome domains [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional status, symptoms, and personal recovery (i.e. self-efficacy, adherence, and purpose/hope)]. Study quality was appraised using Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and data were synthesized by outcome domains. We conducted subgroup analysis by sex. We included 34 studies (n = 16 712), of which 11 were included in meta-analyses. Being married/partnered was significantly associated with higher HRQoL {six studies [n = 2734]; pooled standardized mean difference, 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12–0.63], I2 = 51%} but not depression [three studies (n = 2005); pooled odds ratio, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.32–1.64); I2 = 65%] or self-efficacy [two studies (n = 356); pooled β, 0.03 (95% CI, −0.09 to 0.14); I2 = 0%]. The associations of marital/partner status with functional status, personal recovery outcomes, and symptoms of anxiety and fatigue were mixed. Sex differences were not evident due to mixed results from the available studies. Conclusions Married/partnered MI patients had higher HRQoL than unpartnered patients, but the associations with functional, symptom, and personal recovery outcomes and sex differences were less clear. Our findings inform better methodological approaches and standardized reporting to facilitate future research on these relationships.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".