A Systematic Review of Patient Heart Failure Self-care Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".