Relationship Between Social Support and Clinical Outcomes: An Evaluation of Participant-Nominated Treatment Supporters in the HOPE 4 Intervention
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The HOPE 4 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention and Evaluation 4) investigated the effectiveness of a comprehensive, collaborative model of care, implemented in Colombia and Malaysia, which aimed to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in individuals with hypertension. One component of this intervention was the nomination of a treatment supporter, where participants could select a family member or friend to assist them with their care. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of these individuals on participant outcomes, as well as the relationship dynamics between participants and their treatment supporter. METHODS: Participants in the HOPE 4 intervention group with baseline and 12 months of follow-up were included for analysis. They were divided into Every Visit (n=339) and <Every Visit (n=268) groups based on whether they had a treatment supporter for all 5 or for <5 follow-up visits, respectively. Outcomes were stratified between groups and tested for significance using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. A survey investigating participant satisfaction with their treatment supporter was administered at 12 months. RESULTS: Groups were majority female (53% versus 62%) with a mean age of 63 and 66 years. Country of origin differed between groups (22% versus 86%; Colombia). A 15.5% ([95% CI, 6.2%–24.8%] P =0.004) greater increase in statin medication use was reported in the Every Visit group at 12 months compared with the <Every Visit group. Sixty-one percent versus 48.2% of participants reported high medication adherence at 12 months ( P <0.003). The difference in change in systolic blood pressure between groups was not found to be significant at 12 months, though it favored the Every Visit group (−2.3 [95% CI, −6.1 to 1.5]; P =0.045). The majority of survey respondents from either study group strongly agreed that having a treatment supporter positively influenced their health. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term support from a nominated treatment supporter was associated with improved adherence, risk factor management, and medication use among individuals with hypertension. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01826019.
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 | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 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 ».