Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
DEPCAT classification of participants: higher DEPCAT scores represent postcode sectors with higher deprivation.
- Figure 2
Outcome of participants' calls.
Tables
Number of units coded Krippendorff's α 95% CI Identity 109 0.865 0.770 to 0.962 Timeline 109 0.865 0.730 to 0.973 Cause 109 0.696 0.392 to 0.924 Consequences 109 0.791 0.478 to 1.000 Cure/control 109 0.840 0.707 to 0.946 Coherence 109 0.593 0.186 to 0.919 Emotion 109 1.000 0.000 to 1.000 Other 109 0.809 0.555 to 1.000 Participants, n = 59 Non-participants, n = 256 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Difference, 95% CI P-value Age, years 50.54 (17.00) 54.74 (21.05) −0.91 to 9.30 ns Number of previous calls 4.00 (5.12) 7.84 (51.20) −9.30 to 16.99 ns n (%) n (%) df Male, n 22 (37) 102 (40) 1 ns Documented history of CHD, n 11 (18) 47 (19) 1 ns Emergency response, n 21 (36) 88 (34) 1 ns Caller involved, n 16 (27) 161 (63) 1 <0.001 F df DEPCAT score 2.978 6306 0.008a CHD = coronary heart disease. DEPCAT = deprivation category. df = degrees of freedom. ns = not significant.
SD = standard deviation.
- Table 3
Number of meaning units and individuals referring to components of illness representation.
Units coded, n = 230 Indivduals, n = 59 n % n % Identity 131 56 59 100 Timeline 48 21 26 44 Cause 10 4 9 15 Consequences 9 4 8 14 Cure/control 46 20 22 37 Coherence 13 6 11 19 Emotion 8 3 6 10 - Table 4
Prevalence (%) of components of illness representation. Comparison with Lau et al (1989).4
Lau et al (1989)4 Current study Identity 96 100 Timeline 49 44 Cause 28 15 Consequences 33 14 Cure control 32 37 Coherence Not investigated 19 Emotion Not investigated 10
In this issue
British Journal of General Practice
How people present symptoms to health services: a theory-based content analysis
Jump to section
Keywords
More in this TOC Section
Related Articles
Cited By...
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
