Peer Support Intervention Trials for Individuals with Heart Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart disease is a major cause of illness, disability and death worldwide with high personal, community and healthcare costs. Social support affects psychological and physical morbidity, mortality, and adjustment to chronic disease. Peer support, a specific type of social support, has been shown to be an effective intervention for a variety of populations. AIM: The aim of this paper is to critically examine the effects of peer support interventions on health outcomes in individuals with heart disease. METHODS: Searches were made of ACP Journal Club, EBM, CDSR, DARE, CCTR (1982-2005), MEDLINE (1966-2005), PsycINFO (1975-July 2005), HealthSTAR (1975-June 2005), and CINAHL (1982-July 2005) using text words and MeSH headings. RESULTS: Electronic and hand searching yielded 27 studies and reviews. Six studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed using guidelines from The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group and The Cochrane Collaboration. Inferences about the results were limited to critical appraisal. The trials demonstrated some positive effects of peer support for individuals with heart disease, including higher levels of self-efficacy, improved activity, reduced pain, and fewer emergency room visits. CONCLUSION: Despite some evidence supporting peer support for individuals with heart disease, methodological problems preclude generalizations. Further research with greater methodological rigor is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".