MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318032714 · doi:10.1097/jcn.0000000000000118

A Systematic Review of Patient Heart Failure Self-care Strategies

2014· review· en· W2318032714 on OpenAlex
Karen Harkness, Melisa A. Spaling, Kay Currie, Patricia H. Strachan, Alexander M. Clark

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalHamilton Health SciencesCARE Canada
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSelf careQualitative researchHealth careQuality of life (healthcare)Systematic reviewMEDLINENursingFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-care is at the foundation for living with a chronic condition such as heart failure (HF). Patients with HF express difficulty with translating self-care knowledge into understanding "how" to engage in these activities and behaviors. Understanding the strategies that patients develop to engage in self-care will help healthcare providers (HCPs) improve support for unmet self-care needs of HF patients. The purpose of this systematic review was to highlight strategies that HF patients use to accommodate self-care recommendations into the reality of their daily lives. METHODS: A systematic review using qualitative meta-synthesis was carried out. Included studies had to contain a qualitative component and data pertaining to self-care of HF from adults older than 18 years and be published as full papers/theses beginning 1995. Ten databases were searched until March 19, 2012. RESULTS: Of 1421 papers identified by the search, 47 were included. Studies involved the following: 1377 patients, 45% women, mean age of 67 years (range, 25-98 years), 145 caregivers, and 15 HCPs. Approaches to self-care reflected both perception- and action-based strategies and were a means to effectively manage HF. Although HF patients often expressed difficulty on how to integrate self-care recommendations into their daily lives, they developed intentional, planned strategies that harnessed previous experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers must appreciate that patients view self-care as an "adaptation" that they undertake to maintain their independence and quality of life. In addition, HCPs must recognize that because self-care is a process of learning over time from experience, an individualized approach that emphasizes how to self-care must be adopted for patients to develop the necessary HF self-care skills.

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.

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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.283 · 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