Using the opinions of coronary heart disease patients in designing a health education booklet for use in general practice consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim This study aimed to explore how the views of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) could inform the design of an information booklet aimed at providing patients and practitioners with a resource to help influence positive health behavioural outcomes. Background Coronary heart disease has major consequences in terms of patient suffering and economic costs, with morbidity and mortality figures in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland among the highest in Europe. Lifestyle behaviours such as smoking, eating an unhealthy diet and a lack of exercise are strongly associated with an increased CHD risk, and practitioners report that health education materials are used in practice to help advise and educate patients about the consequences of their lifestyle. Methods Opinions of patients with CHD were explored concerning their information needs, particularly lifestyle advice, using a qualitative approach in four general practices. This information was used to design a booklet for a pilot study aimed at promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours and medication adherence among people with CHD. Focus group discussions explored patients’ opinions about the booklet’s ‘fitness for purpose’; semi-structured interviews with practitioners examined their views on the booklet’s usefulness. Findings In initial focus groups, patients identified gaps in their information provision regarding coping with stress, available local community support and medication purpose. Previously published literature was modified to address these gaps. Patients in the pilot study were satisfied with the re-designed booklet. Practitioners reported that its use in consultations enabled change implementation and facilitated patients’ understanding of connections between lifestyle and health outcomes. Acknowledging the opinions of CHD patients in producing health information booklets emphasized a patient-centred approach and therefore supported practitioner–patient partnerships for choosing healthy lifestyle choices.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".