Evaluating a Web-Based Self-Management Intervention in Heart Failure Patients: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based interventions may have the potential to support self-care in patients with chronic disease, yet little is known about the feasibility of Web-based interventions in patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop and pilot a Web-based self-care intervention for patients with HF. METHODS: Following development and pretesting, we pilot tested a Web-based self-care intervention using a randomized controlled design. A total of 28 participants completed validated measures of HF knowledge, self-care, and self-efficacy at baseline and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: Change scores and effect size estimates showed that the mean differences in HF knowledge (d=0.06), self-care (d=0.32), and self-efficacy (d=0.37) were small. Despite email reminders, 7 of 14 participants (50%) of the sample accessed the site daily and 4 of 14 (28%) had no record of access. CONCLUSIONS: Larger randomized controlled trials are needed that attend to all sources of self-efficacy and include more comprehensive educational tools to improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".