The ICD Shock and Stress Management Program: A Randomized Trial of Psychosocial Treatment to Optimize Quality of Life in ICD Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients potentially face significant psychological distress because of their risk for life-threatening arrhythmias and the occurrence of ICD shock. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to test an ICD stress and shock management program delivered in either a six-week format or a one-day workshop format. This intervention was aimed at reducing psychological (anxiety) and physiological (salivary cortisol) markers of distress in ICD patients. Secondary endpoints included measures of quality of life (QOL) and patient acceptance of device therapy, as well as biological mediators of inflammation (TNFalpha and IL-6). RESULTS: The ICD stress and shock management program resulted in the reduction of anxiety (P < 0.05) and cortisol levels (P < 0.05) in both the six weekly sessions format and the one-day workshop. Measures of anxiety decreased more rapidly with weekly intervention (P = 0.05). Both formats also resulted in a significant increase in patient acceptance of the ICD (P < 0.01). Follow-up assessment from posttreatment (T2) to four-month follow-up (T4) indicated no significant change in depression scores from posttreatment for all groups taken together, but there was a significant group by time effect, such that the workshop group displayed an increase in depression scores from T2 (M = 8.71, SD = 4.39) to T4 (M = 13.57, SD = 11.90), P < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that structured interventions for shocked ICD patients involving ICD education and cognitive-behavioral strategies can reduce psychological distress and improve quality of life, regardless of format.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".