Measuring the effect of nurse practitioner (NP)-led care on health-related quality of life in adult patients with atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resource use. The prevalence of AF is increasing with a growing and aging population, and timely access to care for these patients is a concern. Nontraditional models of care delivery, such as nurse practitioner (NP)-led clinics, may improve access to care and quality of care, but they require formal assessment. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of NP-led care on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of adult patients with AF. METHODS/DESIGN: We plan a randomized controlled trial comparing NP-led care vs. standard care. Inclusion criteria are ≥18 years of age, documented nonvalvular AF, willingness to give informed consent, and capacity to complete questionnaires. Patients referred for electrophysiological intervention who are clinically unstable or unable to attend follow-up visits will not be eligible to participate. Patients will be asked for verbal consent during the initial triage phone call from the nurse. Randomization will occur via a secure website. The intervention includes an NP consult, including medical history, physical examination, patient teaching, treatment plan, and follow-up at 3 and 6 months. The control arm involves usual cardiologist consultation with follow-up determined by the cardiologist's practice pattern. The primary outcome will be the difference in change in Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life Survey scores at 6 months between groups. Secondary outcomes will include difference in change of EQ-5D scores at 6 months between groups, difference in composite outcomes of death resulting from cardiovascular cause, hospitalizations and emergency department visits between groups, and satisfaction with NP-led care measured by the Consultant Satisfaction Questionnaire. A sample size of 70 per group will ensure adequate power despite a potential 10% loss to follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our study will determine the effect of NP-led AF care on HRQoL in patients with AF, as well as measure its impact on relevant outcomes such as death, hospitalization, and emergency department visits. Our findings may have implications for delivery of care to patients with AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov, NCT02745236 . Registered on 16 April 2016.
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 | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.009 |
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".