MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150965690 · doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfp058

Patient and Informal Caregivers’ Knowledge of Heart Failure: Necessary but Insufficient for Effective Self-Care

2009· article· en· W2150965690 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander M. Clark, C. Nicole Freydberg, Finlay A. McAlister, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Paul W. Armstrong, Laurel A. Strain

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Self-care of heart failure (HF) is a process that is important, complex, and challenging. Little is understood of the contextual factors influencing self-care. We aimed to examine the individual and contextual factors perceived by patients and their informal caregivers' to influence their willingness and capacity to undertake effective HF self-care. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 42 patients with HF (NYHA Class II and III, mean age: 76 years, 64% males) and 30 nominated caregivers (63% spouses). All patients experienced severe and intrusive HF symptoms; a large proportion of patients practiced some of the range of recommended self-care activities. However, links between knowledge of HF and self-care were weak and long delays in seeking professional care were frequent. Factors consistently reported to influence self-care were faith in health professionals, beliefs about the local health system, and values linked to work associated with place, history, and culture. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of HF and its management is a necessary though not sufficient determinant of HF self-care. Individual and contextual factors influence willingness and capacity to undertake effective HF self-care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207