Cardiovascular Risk Education and Social Support (CaRESS): Report of a Randomized Controlled Trial from the Kentucky Ambulatory Network (KAN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Test a practice-based intervention to foster involvement of a relative or friend for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We enrolled in a randomized controlled trial 199 patients and 108 support persons (SPs) from 18 practices within a practice-based research network. All patient participants had type 2 diabetes with suboptimal blood pressure control and were prepared to designate a SP. A subset of the patients also had dyslipidemia. All study visits were conducted at the practice sites where staff took standardized blood pressure measurements and collected blood samples. All patients completed one education session and received newsletters aimed at improving key health behaviors. Intervention group patients included their chosen SP in the education session and the SPs received newsletters. RESULTS: After 9 to 12 months, the intervention had no significant effect on systolic blood pressure, HbA1C, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, medication adherence, or perceived health competence. Power was insufficient to detect an effect on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Baseline cardiovascular risk values were not very high, with mean systolic blood pressure at 140 mm Hg; mean HbA1C at 7.6%; and mean low-density lipoprotein at 137 mg/dL. Patient health care satisfaction was high. CONCLUSION: This practice-based intervention to foster social support for chronic care management among diabetics had no significant impact on the targeted 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".