The effect of a peer support intervention on early recovery outcomes in men recovering from coronary bypass surgery: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Examine the effect of a professionally-guided telephone peer support intervention on recovery outcomes including depression, perceived social support, and health services utilization after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with post-coronary artery bypass graft surgery men ( N=185) who were randomized before hospital discharge. The intervention arm received telephone-based peer support through weekly telephone calls from a peer volunteer over six weeks, initiated within 3-4 days of discharge. RESULTS: Although a significant difference was detected in pre-intervention depression scores at discharge, there were no differences between groups in changes in depression scores at six weeks ( p=0.08), 12 weeks (0.49) or over time ( p=0.51); and no significant differences in perceived social support scores over time ( p=0.94). At 12 weeks, the intervention group had significantly lower incidence of health services utilization (family physician ( p=0.02) and emergency room ( p=0.04)). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers need to continue to investigate novel interventions to enhance social support and reduce depression in cardiac patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".