Knowledge level and coping strategies according to coagulation levels in older persons with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the knowledge level and the coping strategies of older persons with atrial fibrillation, who were on oral anticoagulant therapy. The relationship among knowledge level, problem and affective-oriented coping strategies, and the level of anticoagulant effectiveness were examined. We also compared differences between subjects who were within a therapeutic range for International Normalized Ratio levels with those who were not. The research design was descriptive and correlational. One hundred older persons completed the Jaloweic Coping Scale (a knowledge questionnaire) and socio-demographic, contextual and clinical characteristic questions. The findings suggested that the knowledge levels were low (53%), and problem-oriented coping strategies were most often used (32.62%) compared to affective-oriented coping strategies (18.96%). Other than praying and putting one's trust in God (P = 0.05), it appeared that no other significant coping strategies differentiated the subjects regarding their level of anticoagulant effectiveness. It is recommended that further examination of the reasons for older persons' low knowledge level, in regard to their oral anticoagulant therapy, occurs and that use of problem-oriented coping strategies, to improve self-care measures, be encouraged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".