A Randomized Trial of Video-based Education in Patients With Heart Failure: The Congestive Heart Failure Outreach Program of Education (COPE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Heart failure (HF) exacerbations often relate to poor self-care. Education programs improve outcomes, but are resource-intensive. We developed a video-based educational intervention and evaluated it in patients with HF. Methods Congestive Heart Failure O utreach P rogram of E ducation was a pragmatic multicenter randomized trial. We included subjects with HF if they were hospitalized, seen in the emergency department (ED), or high-risk outpatients, and randomized them to intervention or control. Intervention included a 20-minute video, supplementary booklet, and 3 bimonthly newsletters focusing on salt and fluid restriction, daily weights, and medications. Subjects watched the video and were encouraged to review it at home, along with the booklet/newsletters. Control subjects received the booklet only. The primary outcome was the difference in cardiovascular hospitalizations or ED visits between groups at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical events and in-hospital days. Results We recruited 539 subjects from 22 centers in Canada and the United States. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups: 64% were male and had a mean age of 66 (± 13) years, mean ejection fraction 31% (± 13.5), and 65% New York Heart Association Functional Classification III/IV. The primary outcome occurred in 57 subjects (21%) in the intervention group compared with 61 subjects (23%) in the control group ( P = 0.66). There were no significant differences in prespecified secondary outcomes; however, death occurred in 18 subjects (7%) in the intervention group and 33 subjects (12%) in the control group ( P = 0.03). Conclusion Video education on self-care did not reduce hospitalizations or ED visits in patients with HF. Of note, mortality was lower in the intervention group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".