Videotapes for spouses of patients having coronary artery bypass and depicting varying success in coping with recovery had no effect on spouses’ emotional outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mahler HI, Kulik JA. Effects of a videotape information intervention for spouses on spouse distress and patient recovery from surgery. Health Psychol2002 ; 21 : 427 –37 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Does a videotaped information intervention targeted at spouses of postoperative coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patients reduce spousal distress and improve patient recovery? Randomised {allocation concealed}*, unblinded, controlled trial with 6 months of follow up. 3 hospitals in San Diego, California, USA. 296 patients (mean age 63 y, 76% men) who had first time CABG surgery without associated procedures (eg, heart valve repair) and their spouses (mean age 61 y). Couples were excluded if either the patient or spouse had previous CABG, serious medical conditions (eg, terminal cancer), were unable to speak English, or were taking antidepressants. Follow up was 83% at 6 months. 93 spouses were allocated to a mastery tape, 101 to a coping tape, and 102 to a control condition. The mastery and coping tapes provided procedural information … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DHealth%2Bpsychology%2B%253A%2B%2Bofficial%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BDivision%2Bof%2BHealth%2BPsychology%252C%2BAmerican%2BPsychological%2BAssociation%26rft.stitle%253DHealth%2BPsychol%26rft.aulast%253DMahler%26rft.auinit1%253DH.%2BI.%26rft.volume%253D21%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D427%26rft.epage%253D437%26rft.atitle%253DEffects%2Bof%2Ba%2Bvideotape%2Binformation%2Bintervention%2Bfor%2Bspouses%2Bon%2Bspouse%2Bdistress%2Band%2Bpatient%2Brecovery%2Bfrom%2Bsurgery.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1037%252F0278-6133.21.5.427%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12211509%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0278-6133.21.5.427&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12211509&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F2%2F48.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000177618900002&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.021 | 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".