A support group created a caring environment where women with heart disease felt understood, supported, and strengthened by peers and nurse facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arthur HM, Wright DM, Smith KM. Women and heart disease: the treatment may end but the suffering continues. Can J Nurs Res2001 ; 33 : 17 –29 [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] QUESTION: From the perspectives of women with heart disease, what is the apparent benefit of a community based communication and psychoeducational support group? Participatory action research. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 16 women (46–76 y) who had experienced a myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the previous 6 months or angina in the previous year, and who had no physical or mental health disabilities. Through a process of discussion, deliberation, and evaluation, participants codesigned a community based communication and psychoeducational support group for themselves that they thought would be beneficial to other women living with heart disease. 2 groups of women (n=9 and n=7) met monthly in 2 hour sessions for 5 months in a local church. A nurse clinician and a nurse researcher jointly facilitated sessions. Women participated in a telephone support … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BJournal%2Bof%2BNursing%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DCan%2BJ%2BNurs%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DArthur%26rft.auinit1%253DH.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D33%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D17%26rft.epage%253D29%26rft.atitle%253DWomen%2Band%2Bheart%2Bdisease%253A%2Bthe%2Btreatment%2Bmay%2Bend%2Bbut%2Bthe%2Bsuffering%2Bcontinues.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11845619%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=11845619&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F4%2F126.atom
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".