The Effect of Health Promoting Programs on Patient's Life Style After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft–Hospitalized in Shiraz Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health promotion is an essential strategy for reduction of health disparities. Health promotion includes all activities that encourage optimum physical, spiritual, and mental functions. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a Health Promotion Program (HPP) on behavior in terms of the dimensions of the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) in patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG). METHODS & MATERIALS: In this clinical trial study, 80 patients who had undergone CABG surgery (2011-2012) were selected and randomly divided in two groups: Experimental and Control that investigated by (HPLP II). Then the experimental group was educated about diet, walking and stress management. The program process was followed up for three months and after tward whole variables were investigated again. The overall score and the scores for the six dimensions of the HPLP (self actualization, health responsibility, exercise, nutrition, interpersonal support and stress management) were measured in the pre- and post-test periods. Data were manually entered into SPSS version 21(IBM Corp, USA) by one the authors. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and paired t-test. Mean standard deviation and standard error of the mean (with 95% Confidence Interval) were generated for each item. RESULTS: Results showed that score of stress management (p=.036), diet (p=.002), Spiritual Growth (p=.001) and interrelationship (p=002) increase in experimental group after intervention. Average scores after three months in the control group had no significant changes; except responsibility for health (p<.05). Results of the study revealed that comparison the scores of the experimental group were significantly different from the control group in all lifestyle aspects except for spiritual growth. CONCLUSION: This study showed that HPP on lifestyle and health promotion in patients who suffered from Coronary Heart Disease (CAD) could improve the patient's awareness of healthy behaviors and well-being in the quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".