MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence to practice: pre-post-implementation study of a patient/provider resource for self-management with heart failure

2007· article· en· W2013422458 on OpenAlex
Margaret B. Harrison, Ian D. Graham, Jo Logan, Cynthia Toman, Elaine Friederg

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureQuality of life (healthcare)NursingResource (disambiguation)Health careBaseline (sea)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Evidence-based recommendations for heart failure self-management are contained in quality clinical practice guidelines. To implement these in practice requires additional translation. Partners in Care for Congestive Heart Failure (PCCHF) is a set of resource materials developed to encourage heart failure patients and their families to assume greater responsibility and to participate in daily decision-making related to their illness experience by enhancing their self-assessment and self-management skills. The study objectives were to evaluate its use, acceptability and relevance of this approach by heart failure patients, nurses and policy-makers. Methods A pre-post study was conducted across 10 rural-urban, acute and community care sites within three Canadian provinces and one US state. Patients' health-related quality of life was assessed with Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Short Form before and 6 weeks after using the PCCHF program. Nurses completed a survey and participated in focus groups. Policy-makers were interviewed before and post implementation. Results Baseline and 6-week measures were completed by 239 patients. Health-related quality of life measures revealed statistically significant improvement after 6 weeks. Thirty-three nurses and 19 policy-makers participated in interviews post implementation. Most patients, nurses and policy-makers found the resource acceptable and relevant to support information needs. Conclusion The PCCHF program positively benefited both patients and clinical staff. The evidence-based teaching materials were considered a useful resource for self-management with heart failure. Time constraints and high staff turnover underline the need for resources like PCCHF to assist in patient-oriented heart failure self-management. Copyright for PCCHF has been transferred to the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation for widespread dissemination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.361 · 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