Effectiveness of Psychoeducational Interventions for Improving Symptoms, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Psychological well Being in Patients with Stable Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several primary trials report the adjunctive value of psychoeducational interventions for improving stable angina symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and psychological well-being; however, few high-quality meta-analyses have examined the overall effectiveness of these interventions. We used meta-analysis in order to determine the effectiveness of psychoeducational interventions for improving symptoms, HRQL and psychological well-being in stable angina patients. Seven trials, involving 949 participants total were included. Those who received psychoeducation experienced nearly 3 less angina episodes per week, delta (Delta)= -2.85, 95% CI, -4.04 to -1.66, and used sublingual (SL) nitrates approximately 4 times less per week, Delta= -3.69, 95% CI -5.50 to -1.89, post-intervention (3-6 months). Significant HRQL improvements (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) were also found for physical limitation, Delta= 8.00, 95% CI 4.23 to 11.77, and disease perception, Delta= 4.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 8.77, but CIs were broad. A pooled estimate of effect on psychological well-being was not possible due to heterogeneity of measures. Psychoeducational interventions may significantly reduce angina frequency and decrease SL nitrate use in the short-term. These encouraging results must be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in methods and small samples. Larger, robust trials are needed to further determine the effectiveness of psychoeducation for stable angina 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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".