Self-care and Quality of Life of Heart Failure Patients at a Multidisciplinary Heart Function Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary heart function clinics aim to improve self-care through patient education and to provide clinical management. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the present study were to investigate the self-care and quality of life of patients attending a multidisciplinary heart function clinic and to explore the relationship between self-care and quality of life. METHODS: One hundred outpatients attending a multidisciplinary heart function clinic were asked to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire included the Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) and the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire, which were used to assess self-care behavior and quality of life, respectively. Self-care practices and perceived barriers were also assessed through semistructured interviews with each patient. RESULTS: : The returned questionnaires (n = 94) were used to compute the following SCHFI maintenance, management, and confidence scores: 60.8 (SD, 19.3), 62.0 (SD, 20.7), and 55.9 (SD, 19.7), respectively. Higher SCHFI scores indicate better self-care. None of the self-care dimensions reached the self-care adequacy cut point of 70. The average score on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire was 49.9 (SD, 25.4), indicating a moderate health-related quality of life. Lower ejection fraction, older age, and better quality of life were associated with better self-care. Determinants of better quality of life were older age, better functional capacity, higher self-care confidence, and fewer comorbidities. The patient interviews revealed that better quality of life is associated with higher self-care confidence and barriers to self-care caused anxiety to the patients. The self-care barriers were found to include lack of self-care education, financial constraints, lack of perceived benefit, and low self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients attending a large multidisciplinary Canadian heart failure clinic do not perform adequate self-care as measured with the SCHFI and report only a moderate quality of life. Increasing self-care through education and tools that target self-care barriers are required and may help improve quality of life.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".