Knowledge, barriers and attitudes toward dietary sodium in patients with decompensated heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Nonadherence to sodium restriction is one of the main precipitating factors of heart failure (HF) decompensation. The three-subscale Dietary Sodium Restriction Questionnaire (DSRQ) enables evaluation of factors that can interfere with adherence. The objective of this study was to assess knowledge, barriers, and attitudes of patients with decompensated HF toward dietary sodium, by comparing those hospitalized for decompensation due to dietary nonadherence (alone or with medication nonadherence) versus those admitted for decompensation due to other causes.Methods: Cross-sectional study carried out at the emergency departments of two public hospitals in Southern Brazil between 2013 and 2014. The sample included patients admitted for decompensated HF. Patients were divided into two groups: decompensation due to nonadherence to diet (alone or with medication nonadherence) and other causes.Results: A total of 225 patients were included (mean age 66 ± 12 years). Patients exhibited a high degree of knowledge about sodium restriction (up to 50\% achieved 40 of 45 points). The opinions of family and health professionals influenced adherence. The main barriers to adherence concerned palatability and dietary preferences. When compared to patients admitted for other causes, those decompensated due to nonadherence had lower ejection fraction (p = .004) and higher Perceived Behavioral Control subscale scores (p = .009).Conclusions: Patients have a high level of knowledge about sodium restriction. The opinion of significant others affects adherence. Nonadherent patients appeared to be more severely ill and endorsed a greater number of barriers that prevent adequate behavior. Some factors-particularly the taste of foods and patients’ dietary preferences – may justify the high prevalence of nonadherence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".