Cardiopulmonary resuscitation training improved perceived control in spouses of patients recovering from an acute cardiac event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moser DK, Dracup K. Impact of cardiopulmonary resuscitation training on perceived control in spouses of recovering cardiac patients. Res Nurs Health2000 ; 23 : 270 –8 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Can training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) increase perceived control in spouses of patients recovering from an acute cardiac event? Randomised (unclear allocation concealment), unblinded, controlled trial with follow up 1 month after intervention. A university medical centre and 4 community hospitals in Southern California, USA. 219 spouses or significant others who were ≥18 years of age, able to read and write English, and living with a partner who had had an acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass surgery, or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the previous 12 months. Exclusion criteria were serious medical conditions in either the patient (other than cardiac disease) or spouse, mental incompetence, or history of mental illness. 89% of spouses (mean age 59 y, 83% women, 91% … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DResearch%2Bin%2Bnursing%2B%2526%2Bhealth%26rft.stitle%253DRes%2BNurs%2BHealth%26rft.aulast%253DMoser%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%2BK.%26rft.volume%253D23%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D270%26rft.epage%253D278%26rft.atitle%253DImpact%2Bof%2Bcardiopulmonary%2Bresuscitation%2Btraining%2Bon%2Bperceived%2Bcontrol%2Bin%2Bspouses%2Bof%2Brecovering%2Bcardiac%2Bpatients.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252F1098-240X%2528200008%252923%253A4%253C270%253A%253AAID-NUR3%253E3.0.CO%253B2-8%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10940952%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=10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<270::AID-NUR3>3.0.CO;2-8&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10940952&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F4%2F1%2F23.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000088571600003&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 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".