Perception of cardiovascular risk following a percutaneous coronary intervention: a cross sectional study

Authors

Patricia M. Davidson, University of Technology, Sydney
Yenna Salamonson, Universty of Western Sydney
John X. Rolley, Deakin University, Universty of Western Sydney
Bronwyn Everett, University of Technology, Sydney
Ritin Fernandez, Universty of Western SydneyFollow
Sharon Andrew, Universty of Western Sydney
Phillip J. Newton, University of Technology, Sydney
Steven Frost, Universty of Western Sydney
Robert Denniss, University of Western Sydney

RIS ID

94256

Publication Details

Davidson, P. M., Salamonson, Y., Rolley, J., Everett, B., Fernandez, R., Andrew, S., Newton, P. J., Frost, S. & Denniss, R. (2011). Perception of cardiovascular risk following a percutaneous coronary intervention: a cross sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48 (8), 973-978.

Abstract

Background An individual's perception of the risk of, and their susceptibility to, future cardiovascular events is crucial in engaging in effective secondary prevention. Aim To investigate the perception of a cardiovascular event by examining the level of agreement between individuals with CHD views of their actual and perceived risk. Methods This study examined the individual's perception of the risk of a subsequent cardiac event among 220 patients hospitalised for a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at a metropolitan, tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Baseline clinical and demographic characteristics were collected, and actual risk (Personal Risk Score) calculated based on the presence or absence of nine cardiovascular risk factors: diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cigarette smoking, previous history of CHD, family history of CHD, depression, overweight or obesity, and physical inactivity. Perception of risk was determined using an investigator-developed 4-item, 11-point Likert scale instrument (Perceived Heart Risk Questionnaire - PHRQ) which measured two dimensions of health threat: perceived seriousness, and perceived susceptibility. The correlation between the Personal Risk Score and the PHRQ was assessed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Results The calculated mean Personal Risk Score was 4.63 ± 1.71 and the PHRQ was 25.5 ± 7.04. The correlation between the Personal Risk Score (actual risk) and the PHRQ (perceived risk) was r = 0.26 (p < 0.01). Conclusions The weak relationship between actual and perceived risk is of concern, particularly in a population at higher risk for future cardiovascular events. Implementing strategies to personalise risk should be explored to improve the accuracy of risk perception, and facilitate tailoring of behaviour change strategies.