MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969474260 · doi:10.1097/jcn.0000000000000130

Predictors of Heart Failure Self-care in Patients Who Screened Positive for Mild Cognitive Impairment

2014· article· en· W1969474260 on OpenAlex
Karen K. Davis, Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb, Sarah L. Szanton, Matthew J. Hayat, Jerilyn K. Allen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalHeart failureMultivariate analysisCognitionAffect (linguistics)DiseaseSelf careAnalysis of varianceInternal medicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyGerontologyHealth carePsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is associated with cognitive impairment, which could negatively affect a patient's abilities to carry out self-care, potentially resulting in higher hospital readmission rates. Factors associated with self-care in patients experiencing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are not known. OBJECTIVE: This descriptive correlation study aimed to assess levels of HF self-care and knowledge and to determine the predictors of self-care in HF patients who screen positive for MCI. METHODS: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was used to screen for MCI. In 125 patients with MCI hospitalized with HF, self-care (Self-care of Heart Failure Index) and HF knowledge (Dutch Heart Failure Knowledge Scale) were assessed. We used multiple regression analysis to test a model of variables hypothesized to predict self-care maintenance, management, and confidence. RESULTS: Mean (SD) HF knowledge scores (11.24 [1.84]) were above the level considered to be adequate (defined as >10). Mean (SD) scores for self-care maintenance (63.57 [19.12]), management (68.35 [20.24]), and confidence (64.99 [16.06]) were consistent with inadequate self-care (defined as scores <70). In multivariate analysis, HF knowledge, race, greater disease severity, and social support explained 22% of the variance in self-care maintenance (P < .001); age, education level, and greater disease severity explained 19% of the variance in self-care management (P < .001); and younger age and higher social support explained 20% of the variance in self-care confidence scores (P < .001). Blacks, on average, scored significantly lower in self-care maintenance (P = .03). CONCLUSION: In this sample, patients who screened positive for MCI, on average, had adequate HF knowledge yet inadequate self-care scores. These models show the influence of modifiable and nonmodifiable predictors for patients who screened positive for MCI across the domains of self-care. Health professionals should consider screening for MCI and identifying interventions that address HF knowledge and social support. Further research is needed to explain the racial differences in self-care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it