Weight and Symptom Diary for Self-monitoring in Heart Failure Clinic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For people with chronic heart failure, self-monitoring has been linked with improved body awareness and better communication with health professionals. Cognitive theory and the concept of somatic awareness help explain self-monitoring behaviors. This study compares the clinical and hospital outcomes of heart failure patients who are using and not using a diary to record weight, vital signs and, symptoms and evaluates the diary format. METHODS: All patients enrolling in an outpatient heart failure clinic were given a Heart Health Diary. Seventy patients used the diary and 54 did not. A review of these 124 patients (82 men and 42 women) was completed 6 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Diary nonusers were more likely to be younger women with a lower ejection fraction and worse functional status. Those using a diary had 35% and 47% more contacts via telephone and clinic, respectively. Both groups had significant functional and B-type natriuretic peptide improvement. If hospitalized after enrollment in the heart failure clinic, average length of stay for all hospital admissions for diary users decreased by 58% (P < .002) and average cost per case decreased by 56% (P < .011). Length of stay and cost per case did not significantly change for those not using diaries. CONCLUSION: Diary users showed evidence of improved clinical and hospital outcomes. Further investigation is needed to clarify the characteristics of a diary user and the effect of diary use on self-management and outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".