Group support for couples coping with a cardiac condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Support groups of peers were designed to convey support specific to stressful situations encountered by persons with a first-time myocardial infarction and by their spouse or partners. There were no previous published support intervention studies focused on the couple. Survivors and spouses (n=28) participated in a pilot study which tested the effect of a 12-week support group intervention. DESIGN: The support groups for couples were cofacilitated by a peer and professional. The facilitators recorded field notes, while participants completed weekly diaries about the intervention activities. Following the intervention, participants were interviewed individually and facilitators were interviewed jointly about the perceived effect of the intervention and influencing factors. This article focuses on the facilitators' and participants' perceptions of intervention processes and outcomes. FINDINGS: Support processes in the group included social comparison, social learning, and social exchange. Three types of support--emotional, information, and affirmation--were provided. All participants were satisfied with the support intervention and referred to the positive effect on their coping, confidence, outlook, and spousal relationship. Factors that influenced the intervention effect were participant input, cofacilitation, similarity of group members, and the provision of information and support. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions could consider similarity of peers, leadership, and optimum timing and duration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".