MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920140639 · doi:10.1177/1060028019835845

Assessment of Condition and Medication Knowledge Gaps Among Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2920140639 on OpenAlexaff
Shahrzad Salmasi, Mary A. De Vera, Arden R. Barry, Nick Bansback, Mark Harrison, Larry D. Lynd, Peter Loewen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsNative Mental Health Association of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationMeta-analysisMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patient education facilitates construction of a correct illness representation, improves beliefs about medications, and improves knowledge, factors that have been associated with better adherence. Objective: Our objective was to characterize the published literature about atrial fibrillation (AF) patients’ disease and medication knowledge to identify knowledge gaps and misconceptions to inform AF patient education strategies. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO from inception to May 2018 for studies that assessed AF patients’ knowledge about their condition and medications. For quantitative studies, we extracted the proportion of participants who provided correct answers to the questions asked about their condition, medications, or risk of stroke. We classified data for related questions into knowledge domains. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for each knowledge domain. A domain was considered a knowledge gap if the pooled mean proportion of participants who demonstrated knowledge of it was ≤50%, regardless of CI. Qualitative data were summarized narratively. Results: A total of 21 studies were included. AF- and stroke-related knowledge gaps and misconceptions included the following: AF can be asymptomatic, AF can predispose to heart failure, women are at a higher risk of stroke, the definition of ischemic stroke, and patients’ awareness of their diagnosis. Medication-related knowledge gaps were antithrombotic-drug interactions, antithrombotic-food interactions, vitamin K content of foods, the term INR (international normalized ratio) and its interpretation, and the required actions in case of a missed dose. Conclusion and Relevance: This systematic review identified several AF patient knowledge gaps about their condition and its treatment that can inform the development of AF patient education programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.038
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207