Exploring the Perceptions and Health Behaviours of Patients Following an Elective Ad-hoc Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Qualitative Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESULTS: Participants expressed uncertainty about their future health and feared disease recurrence, which appeared to provide motivation for adopting a healthier lifestyle. Although two participants voiced the belief that the elective PCI cured their disease, this perception did not appear to influence their engagement in risk reduction behaviours. However, systemfactors such as a lack of information, direction, and/or support from health care providers appeared to play a limiting role in their ability to move forward with lifestyle change. BACKGROUND: Elective ad-hoc percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are increasingly used to manage the symptoms of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, we have limited understanding of the patients' experiences and health behaviours post-procedure. PURPOSE: Explore the factors that influence the perceptions and health behaviours of patients after elective ad-hoc PCI. METHODS: This interpretive descriptive study used purposive sampling to recruit participants (N = 10) aged 44 to 65 years following an elective ad-hoc PCI from a cardiac catheterization laboratory at a tertiary centre in Winnipeg, MB. Participants were interviewed 11 to 35 days following their procedure. Recruitment continued until no new substantive themes emerged. The Health Belief Model provided the frameworkfor developing, exploring, interpreting, and analyzing the data. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Nurses have a key role in the education of patients and in providingpatient-centred care that supports lifestyle change. Nurses need to develop strategies that decrease barriers to engaging in risk reduction behaviours following elective ad-hoc PCI if patients are to experience improved health and longevity.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".