A systematic review of psychoeducational intervention trials for the management of chronic stable angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic stable angina (CSA) is a cardinal symptom of coronary artery disease and has a major impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). There are few data on the effectiveness of psychoeducational interventions for CSA patients that target HRQOL-related outcomes. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of psychoeducational interventions for CSA management based on the best available evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effects of psychoeducational interventions on angina symptoms, angina symptom-related distress, and physical functioning was conducted. Four primary studies (1994-97) were included that had (a) specified treatment and control conditions, (b) participants with anigna class I-III (Canadian Cardiovascular Society) and (c) psychoeducational interventions. These studies were reviewed for methodological rigour. A pooled common effect could not be determined because of heterogeneity of outcomes, measures and analyses. RESULTS: While positive effects were reported, methodological problems with respect to sampling, randomization, controls and measurement precluded generalization. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of psychoeducation interventions for improving angina outcomes is inconclusive. Future RCTs of psychoeducational programmes require methodologically robust methods to reduce biases and random error, and to enhance the generalizability of findings for CSA management.
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 | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".