MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986919195 · doi:10.1136/ebn.6.1.21

Nurse led transitional care improved health related quality of life and reduced emergency department use for heart failure

2003· letter· en· W1986919195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicola Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureWeb of scienceEmergency departmentNursing careQuality of life (healthcare)PediatricsInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harrison MB, Browne GB, Roberts J, et al. Quality of life of individuals with heart failure: a randomised trial of the effectiveness of two models of hospital-to-home transition. Med Care2002 ; 40 : 271 –82 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients admitted to hospital with heart failure, is nurse led transitional care more effective than usual care for improving health related quality of life and reducing use of health services? Randomised (allocation concealed), blinded {data collectors and data analysts},* controlled trial with follow up 12 weeks after hospital discharge. A large urban teaching hospital in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 192 patients (mean age 76 y, 55% men) who were admitted to a general medical unit with congestive heart failure were included if they resided in the regional home care radius, expected to be discharged with home nursing care, were admitted for >24 hours to the nursing units, and were not cognitively impaired. Follow up was 82%. Patients were allocated to … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DMedical%2Bcare%26rft.stitle%253DMed%2BCare%26rft.aulast%253DHarrison%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BB.%26rft.volume%253D40%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D271%26rft.epage%253D282%26rft.atitle%253DQuality%2Bof%2Blife%2Bof%2Bindividuals%2Bwith%2Bheart%2Bfailure%253A%2Ba%2Brandomized%2Btrial%2Bof%2Bthe%2Beffectiveness%2Bof%2Btwo%2Bmodels%2Bof%2Bhospital-to-home%2Btransition.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1097%252F00005650-200204000-00003%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12021683%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00005650-200204000-00003&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12021683&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F1%2F21.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000174712000003&link_type=ISI

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207