Semin Vasc Med 2002; 02(3): 267-314
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-35401
Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Systematic Review of Prospective Cohort Studies of Psychosocial Factors in the Etiology and Prognosis of Coronary Heart Disease

Hannah Kuper1 , Michael Marmot1 , Harry Hemingway1,2
  • 1Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London Medical School, London, England
  • 2Department of Research and Development, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority, London, England
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 November 2002 (online)

Preview

ABSTRACT

The extent to which the associations between psychosocial factors and coronary heart disease (CHD) are causal has seldom been the subject of systematic enquiry. We are updating our previous systematic review up to 2001. The objective of this study is to assess the relative strength of the epidemiological evidence for causal links between psychosocial factors and CHD incidence among healthy populations, and prognosis among CHD patients. Our methods were to systematically review prospective cohort studies identified through the Science Citation index, which met pre-specified quality criteria. We found that the proportion of etiologic studies reporting a strong or moderate association was: 6/18 for Type A behavior and hostility, 15/22 for depression, 4/8 for anxiety, 10/13 for psychosocial work characteristics and 6/9 for social support. For prognostic studies the proportions were: 2/15 for type A behavior and hostility, 18/34 for depression, 8/18 for anxiety, 2/4 for psychosocial work characteristics and 14/21 for social support. Positive studies were more likely to be cited by other papers than negative studies. We concluded that, based on prospective epidemiological data, there was evidence for an association between depression, social support and psychosocial work characteristics and CHD aetiology and prognosis. Evidence for an effect of anxiety or type A behavior was less consistent. Methods to address bias in the reporting of psychosocial data are required.

REFERENCES