Improving support for heart failure patients: a systematic review to understand patients' perspectives on self‐care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This systematic review aimed to generate patient-focussed recommendations to enhance support of heart failure self-care by examining patients' experiences, perspectives and self-care behaviours. BACKGROUND: Despite increased recognition of the importance of heart failure self-care, patients' knowledge and practices around this self-care and interventions to improve it are inconsistent. Consequently, current guidelines focus on what the domains of heart failure self-care are, more so than the ways to improve this care. DESIGN: Systematic review and qualitative interpretive synthesis. DATA SOURCES: A systematic, comprehensive and detailed search of 11 databases was conducted until March, 2012 for papers published 1995-2012: 37 studies were included (1343 patients, 75 caregivers, 63 health care professionals) that contained a qualitative research component and data on adult patients' heart failure self-care. REVIEW METHODS: This interpretive synthesis used a recognized approach consisting of a multi-stage analytic process; in addition, the included studies underwent quality appraisal. RESULTS: Findings indicate that while patients could often recall health professionals' self-care advice, they were unable to integrate this knowledge into daily life. Attempts to manage HF were based on how patients 'felt' rather than clinical indicators of worsening symptoms. Self-efficacy and learning from past management experiences facilitated favourable outcomes - these enabled patients and caregivers to adeptly apply self-care strategies into daily activities. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing common but basic knowledge misconceptions regarding the domains of HF self-care is insufficient to increase effective HF self-care; this should be supplemented with strategies with patients and family members to promote self-efficacy, learning and adaptation/application of recommendations to daily life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".