Perceived Effects on Patients' Health of Participation in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Patients' views about participation in clinical trials have been explored using end-of-study questionnaires for various disease entities. However, little is known about why individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) choose to participate in clinical trials or how they view their research experience. Understanding these perceptions should provide valuable information for future studies in developing methods to enhance enrollment, optimize adherence to therapies, and maximize patient retention. METHODS: The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Study was a randomized trial of rate-control versus rhythm-control for the management of AF. This descriptive ancillary study used a 7-item questionnaire comprising closed and open-ended items that explored: (1) perceptions of benefits from participation, (2) motivation for enrolling, and (3) satisfaction with research staff and operations. RESULTS: A total of 741/1,032 participants (72%) at 34 of 213 participating AFFIRM sites responded, representing 18% of the 4,060 patients enrolled. The mean follow-up of these respondents was 3.8 +/- 1.1 years. Most respondents (91%) felt that they received enough information about AFFIRM before enrolling and that the results would benefit themselves (88%) and others (91%). Most respondents felt study participation improved awareness about AF (90%) and facilitated coordination of their healthcare (89%). Virtually all were satisfied with information received from AFFIRM personnel (96%), and most (98%) reported that they had received "good care." Responses were similar between randomization groups (rate-control or rhythm-control) and between those younger than 65 years and those 65 years or older. Participants in sinus rhythm at last follow-up were more likely to believe that their medical care in AFFIRM was better than what they would otherwise have received, and were more likely to perceive their treatment course as entailing fewer emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and doctor visits. Regularly scheduled appointments and ongoing availability of staff to answer questions appeared to increase participants' confidence and reduce anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Patients enrolled in a long-term clinical trial for management of AF were overwhelmingly satisfied with participation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».