The Efficacy of a Motivational Nursing Intervention Based on the Stages of Change on Self-care in Heart Failure Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: : Heart failure (HF) patients experience frequent episodes of decompensation. While medication and behavior change play a major role in maintaining physiological stability, patient adherence to self-care recommendations is not optimal. The Theory of Heart Failure Self-care helped to understand the concepts of self-care and chose a model of intervention. Conviction and confidence are central factors in facilitating self-care. Motivational interviewing (MI), which aims to strengthen conviction and confidence, has been shown to improve self-care. In addition, the Transtheoretical Model, based on patients' readiness to change, also has proven efficacy. The MI based on the stages of change (MISC), a combination of MI and Transtheoretical Model, offers promise for improving self-care. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate the preliminary effect of an MISC intervention on HF patients' self-care behaviors. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: : Thirty patients were recruited from an HF clinic and randomly assigned to an experimental (EG) or control group (n = 15/group). Patients from the EG received 3 interventions (1 in person, 2 on the phone). Data were collected at baseline and at 1 month after randomization. The effect of the intervention was assessed on 5 self-care outcomes using analysis-of-covariance models. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: : Significant results were obtained regarding the confidence in performing self-care behaviors specific to HF (P =.005). Although the results of the other hypotheses were not statistically significant, for the majority, trends were in the expected direction in favor of the EG. The study suggests that an MISC intervention is useful to increase patients' confidence in HF self-care and has potential to improve self-care. Further research is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".