A randomised controlled trial of a self-management plan for patients with newly diagnosed angina.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are approximately 1.8 million patients with angina in the United Kingdom, many of whom report a poor quality of life, including raised levels of anxiety and depression. AIM: To evaluate the effect of a cognitive behavioural disease management programme, the Angina Plan, on psychological adjustment in patients newly diagnosed with angina pectoris. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients from GP practices in a Northern UK city (York) between April 1999 and May 2000. METHOD: Recruited patients were randomised to receive the Angina Plan or to a routine, practice nurse-led secondary prevention educational session. RESULTS: Twenty of the 25 practices invited to join the study supplied patients' names; 142 patients attended an assessment clinic and were randomised There were no significant differences in any baseline measures. At the six month post-treatment follow-up, 130 (91%) patients were reassessed. When compared with the educational session patients (using analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline scores in an intention-to-treat analysis) Angina Plan patients showed a greater reduction in anxiety (P = 0.05) and depression (P = 0.01), the frequency of angina (reduced by three episodes per week, versus a reduction of 0.4 per week, P = 0.016) the use of glyceryl trinitrate (reduced by 4.19 fewer doses per week versus a reduction of 0.59 per week, P = 0.018), and physical limitations (P<0.001: Seattle Angina Questionnaire). They were also more likely to report having changed their diet (41 versus 21, P<0.001) and increased their daily walking (30 versus 2, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups on the other sub-scales of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire or in any of the medical variables measured. CONCLUSION: The Angina Plan appears to improve the psychological, symptomatic, and functional status of patients newly diagnosed with angina.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".