Almost two decades ago, Drs. Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman developed the concept of the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern and pioneered research in the area. Since then, much research has been devoted to investigating both medical and psychosocial implications of this phenomenon by an impressive array of biomedical and behavioral scientists. Although the very nature of the Type A concept of coronary-prone behavior requires examination by researchers from a variety of disciplines, the result has been the publication of findings in both the medical and behavioral literature that has created difficulties in gaining a truly comprehensive understanding of the total effort in this area - thus the need to organize this information in a more coherent fashion so that it could be subjected to examination by members of both the medical and behavioral scientific communities. It was this need that stimulated the idea of conducting the Forum on Coronary-prone Behavior in which the literature could be reviewed and issues addressed in an organized fashion. The first step in planning the Forum was to identify major issues. The major issues identified were formulated into five questions: (1) What is the specific evidence that suggests a causal link between coronary-prone behavior and coronary heart disease? (2) How is the coronary-prone behavior pattern assessed? (3) What are the mechanisms that translate the behavior pattern into coronary heart disease? (4) How does coronary-prone behavior originate? (5) What can be done to alter coronary-prone behavior? The second step in planning the Forum was to derive more specific questions from each of the major questions listed above and to identify those scientists best equipped to answer these questions within the limitations of the 'state of the art'. To accomplish this, a steering committee was formed within the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). The third step in the planning process was to ask each of the participants to prepare a position paper in which the essential theoretical and empirical issues relevant to the particular question assigned were identified and addressed. In essence, the participants were asked to summarize existing data and identify areas and issues that needed to be considered to resolve conceptual, methodological, and controversial problems relevant to their assigned topic. To facilitate discussion during the Forum, participants were also asked to prepare written comments on issues not in their area (i.e., beyond the scope of their paper). The Forum agenda was organized around the five major questions discussed above. The specific questions within each area and the individuals who addressed them are listed under the major categories. All participants were assigned to one of the four major groups. Discussants were identified by the Steering Committee and were assigned the task of synthesizing the most relevant data from all papers presented by their group members. Each group, under the direction of the Group Coordinator and assisted by the Discussant, was requested to prepare a Summary Statement to capture the essence of each position paper, information from the discussion during the Forum, and salient elements contained in the Discussant's remarks. As can be seen in the Table of Contents of these Proceedings, each summary statement precedes the position papers for a particulate area. There is some overlap of material among the summary statements and position papers, but each has its own major focus.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Title of host publication||Unknown Host Publication Title|
|State||Published - 1977|
ASJC Scopus subject areas