Knowledge of “Heart Attack” Symptoms in a Canadian Urban Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Temporal delays in myocardial infarction (MI) treatment have been addressed through patient and physician education, innovations in prehospital fibrinolysis, and improvements to emergency medical services, yet the most significant contributor to delayed treatment is the patient's ability to recognize and respond to symptoms. Purpose To determine whether public health education campaigns have achieved their desired reach by ensuring that all segments of the population recognize the symptoms of MI (“heart attack”). Methods 976 men and women, 40+ years of age, randomly selected from Metro Vancouver, Canada completed a telephone survey in English, Punjabi, Mandarin, or Cantonese. Respondents' knowledge of MI symptoms was assessed; 10 “correct symptoms” were considered to be: chest pain/pressure/tightness/discomfort, arm pain, shortness of breath, nausea/indigestion, sweating/clamminess, shoulder/back pain, dizziness/faintness/light headedness, jaw pain, weakness, and uneasiness/panic/anxiety. Results 3.2% of the sample could not identify any correct symptoms and 53.3% were able to describe 3+ symptoms. Significant associations were found between the number of correct symptoms and gender, ethnicity, education, exposure to health professional counseling, and worry about having a heart attack. The least number of correct symptoms were reported by: men (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.81-0.95), Chinese-Canadian participants (IRR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.65-0.83; relative to European-Canadian born participants), those with less than high school education (IRR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66-0.92; relative to those with more than high school), those with no health professional counseling (IRR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84-1.00), and those who did not worry “at all” about having a heart attack (IRR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; relative to those who worried sometimes/often/almost all the time). Conclusions The participants were not well informed about the symptoms of heart attack. It will be challenging to educate the public sufficiently to reduce the time between the onset of symptoms and initiation of treatment for MI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".