Need for Psychosocial Assistance in Patients Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery Evaluated by a Seven-Item Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiothoracic surgery can have adverse effects on the patients' psychosocial well-being which may influence the overall prognosis. In this study, we tested the use of a seven-item screening instrument for the preoperative identification of need for psychosocial assistance in cardiothoracic patients. Methods and RESULTS: A total of 297 consecutive patients (69% male) with a median age of 70 years (59;75) completed the seven-item Hornheide Screening Instrument (HSI) on the day of admission. According to questionnaire scores predefined in the literature (cutoff ≥ 4), 130 patients (44%) exhibited a need for psychosocial support. We found female patients to have significantly higher need for psychosocial support than male patients, irrespective of their age, New York Heart Association classification or Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification, and the type of surgery they were undergoing (53 vs. 41%, p=0.034). In addition, we found that preoperative need for psychosocial support, using the predefined cutoff criterion as well as a higher absolute score, was associated with a prolonged length of hospitalization (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: We found the HSI to be a suitable tool to identify psychosocial need in cardiothoracic patients. The relatively high incidence of these patients in our study concurs with previous studies, which generally used more complex instruments. In addition, we found that preoperative scores were associated with prolonged length of stay. Therefore, the use of this questionnaire could represent an alternative, more rapid tool for the psychosocial assessment of cardiothoracic patients in daily routine.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".