Home-Based Self-Management After Permanent Pacemaker Implantation: What Should Patients Know
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Han Yan,1,* Yu Shuang Chen,2,* Yi Li,2 Guan-Xing Wei,2 Fang Ma,3 Qiu Lan Hu,4 Lan Ding,5 Wei Wei,6 Yan Li,7 Yang-Juan Bai2 1Intensive Care Unit of Cardiac Surgery Department, QingDao Municipal Hospital (Group), Qingdao, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 2The First Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, People’s Republic of China; 3Nursing Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, People’s Republic of China; 4Geriatric Intensive Care Unit, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, People’s Republic of China; 5Outpatient Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, People’s Republic of China; 6Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, People’s Republic of China; 7Department of Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Yang-Juan Bai, The First Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, No. 295, Xichang Road, Kunming, Yunnan, 650032, People’s Republic of China, Tel +8613678757051, Email baiyangjuan300325@126.comObjective: The purpose of this study is to systematically explore and summarize the best evidence of home-based self-management in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation, providing comprehensive references and guidance for improving the self-management ability of such patients.Methods: Using the “ 6S” model, a systematic literature search was conducted on home-based self-management in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation. The types of literature included best practice, clinical decision-making, guidelines, expert consensus, systematic review and evidence summary. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers screened the literature, evaluated the quality, extracted the data, synthesized the evidence.Data Sources: BMJ Best Practice, Up To Date, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Guidelines International Network (GIN), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Medlive, CNKI Database, SinoMed (China Biomedical Literature Database), Wanfang Database and VIP Database. The retrieval period spanned from the establishment of these databases until January 31, 2025.Results: A total of 21 articles were included, 1 best practice, 9 clinical decision-making, 5 guidelines, 3 expert consensus, 1 systematic review, and 2 evidence summaries. Thirty-five pieces of the best evidence from 7 aspects were summarized, including complication management, electromagnetic interference management, sports rehabilitation management, operative limb management, postoperative follow-up management, role management, and emotional management.Conclusion: This review comprehensively summarized the best evidence home-based self-management in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation. These findings are scientific and referential, and provide evidence-based support for nursing and management of patients during home-based rehabilitation.Keywords: permanent pacemaker, self-management, best evidence, evidence-based nursing
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».