Peer Support. An Under-Recognized Resource in Cardiac Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of mortality and premature death in western societies. Thus, rates of interventions such as coronary artery bypass surgery are continuing to grow. Health care reform and initiatives to reduce health care expenditures have resulted in early patient discharge from hospital following cardiac surgery. With subsequent cutbacks in nursing support and community-based care, patients are leaving hospital less prepared and supported to deal with the changes that occur during the first weeks of recovery. AIMS: To examine the theoretical assumptions that support the contention that peer support is an under-utilized resource for patients who are recovering from cardiac surgery and the challenges to evaluating peer support interventions. METHODS: A review of current literature, which focuses on cardiac surgery recovery, transitions, social support, and peer support interventions. RESULTS: Peer support (lay assistance from individuals who possess experiential knowledge and similar characteristics), a form of social support, is a viable and potentially sustainable mechanism to put in place during transitional life events such as recovery from cardiac surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation is needed of peer support interventions for cardiac surgery patients. Specifically, investigations of the influence of peer support interventions on recovery and health outcomes are necessary in this patient population. Yet, challenges exist to undertaking well-designed investigations of social interventions such as peer support.
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 | 0.015 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".