Clinical Implications of a Reduction in Psychological Distress on Cardiac Prognosis in Patients Participating in a Psychosocial Intervention Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this secondary analysis was to examine the relationships between a reduction in psychological distress and long-term cardiac and psychological outcomes in post-myocardial infarction patients who participated in a randomized trial of home-based psychosocial nursing interventions (the Montreal Heart Attack Readjustment Trial [M-HART]). Gender differences were considered. METHODS: We studied 433 patients (36.0% women) from the M-HART treatment group who received two home visits after achieving a high psychological distress score (ie, > or =5) on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Short-term GHQ success was determined by a return to a normal GHQ score (<5) or a reduction of > or =50% after the two visits. Patients with short-term successful and unsuccessful GHQ outcomes were compared for mid-term maintenance of success, 1-year death and readmission rates, and 1-year depression and anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Patients with short-term GHQ success were more likely to show mid-term GHQ success (p < .001), marginally less likely to die of any causes (p = .087), less likely to die of cardiac causes (p = .043), less likely to be readmitted for any reason (p < .001) and for cardiac reasons (p < .001), and less likely to have high depression (p < .001) and anxiety (p < .001) at 1-year than patients with short-term unsuccessful GHQ outcomes. Results held for men and women and were not altered by controlling for potential confounders. However, the number of deaths prevented analysis with statistical controls. CONCLUSIONS: Post-myocardial infarction interventions that reduce psychological distress have the potential to improve long-term prognosis and psychological status for both men and women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".