Health beliefs about lifestyle habits differ between patients and spouses 1 year after a cardiac event – a qualitative analysis based on the Health Belief Model. Issue 2 (21st July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Köhler, Anita Kärner; Nilsson, Staffan; Jaarsma, Tiny; Tingström, Pia
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of caring sciences. Volume 31:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 332
• Page End: 341
• Publication Date: 2016-07-21
• Subjects: Coronary Heart Disease -- Primary Care -- Health Psychology -- Qualitative content analysis; Nursing -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1111/scs.12351
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0283-9318

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Spousal concordance on risk factors and lifestyle habits exists and can partly be explained by patients' and spouses' health beliefs and underuse of cardiac rehabilitation. However, there have been very few qualitative comparisons of health beliefs between patients and spouses after a cardiac event. Aim: To examine and qualitatively compare the health beliefs of patients with coronary heart disease and their spouses about lifestyle habits, 1 year after the cardiac event. Design: Explorative and descriptive. Method: Semi‐structured focus group interviews were conducted with patients (n = 14) 1 year after a cardiac event, as well as individual interviews with spouses (n = 8). The transcriptions underwent a deductive qualitative content analysis, within the framework of the Health Belief Model. Findings: Patients' and spouses' health beliefs about lifestyle habits qualitatively differed in most predetermined main analytical categories of the Health Belief Model. The patients relied more on their own capacity and the healthcare system than on collaboration with their spouses who instead emphasised the importance of mutual activities to establish lifestyle habits. The spouses therefore experienced problems with different family preferences compared to the patients' wishes. Moreover, only patients believed supervised exercise was beneficial for risk reduction of coronary heart disease and they related barriers for medication to a self‐healing body and a meaningless life without relatives and old habits. Patients and spouses agreed that despite the severity of illness, life was captured and that normalisation to a life as usual was possible. Conclusion: The patients' and spouses' qualitatively different health beliefs regarding health‐related behaviours imply a new approach. Nurses and associated professionals need to follow‐up patients' and spouses' in primary health care to support them in a tailored way, for example in problem‐based sessions. Recognition and understanding of their different views and otherness could lead to compromises and goals to work with.