The Stressors and Coping Strategies of Older Adults With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Prior to and Following Direct Current Cardioversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the stressors and coping strategies of older adults with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) before and after direct current cardioversion. METHOD: The study used a qualitative descriptive design. Sixteen patients were recruited through an AF clinic to participate in individual interviews prior to the cardioversion and at 6 and 12 weeks post procedure. RESULTS: Pre-cardioversion, older adults experienced symptom and health care-related stressors superimposed on existing non-AF stressors. They used a range of emotion and problem-focused coping. Non-AF stressors increased post procedure at the same time that participants perceived less need for coping strategies with a return to regular rhythm. DISCUSSION: There was a shift from AF to non-AF related stressors following the cardioversion but a decrease in coping strategies. Older adults with AF should be encouraged to maintain use of coping strategies to manage ongoing stress and reduce the risk of AF recurrence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".