{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014883720930232559, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037209302325581397, 'mean_word_length': 5.113636363636363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review

Abstract The aims of this systematic literature review are to describe the pattern of attributions made for the causes of heart disease, and to determine how this pattern varies with the method by which attributions are elicited, and the respondent group. A search yielded 47 papers and reports, containing 54 datasets. Lifestyle factors and chronic stress were the most common causes cited across all datasets. Attributions to stressors and fate or luck were more likely to be reported in studies that used interval rating scales than in studies that used dichotomous ratings. Cardiac patients were more likely to mention stressors and fate or luck as causes of heart disease; non-patients rated being overweight and hypertensive as more important The differences observed between the responses of patients and non-patients may be due to actor - observer differences, or to a methodological difference: patients are often asked to report their own experiences whereas non-patients are asked about the general case.