Priorities for Services in Young Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Their Family Members: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal design of clinical programs for patients with premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (men aged ≤ 50 years, women aged ≤ 55 years) requires an understanding of their priorities. We aimed to explore patient and family priorities for services in clinical programs. METHODS: olumbia (SAVE BC) (n = 15). In Phase II, we designed a questionnaire based on Phase I data and distributed it to all current SAVE BC participants. We collected close-ended responses (n = 116) and stratified data using participant category (index, family member), age, sex, and number of clinic visits. RESULTS: We identified 4 major priorities for services in clinical programs: social support (weight: 62.6%), patient education (weight: 83.5%), mental health (weight: 50.7%), and lifestyle changes (85.1%). To address these priorities, participants wanted ASCVD clinical programs to enable recruitment of their family members, establish a comprehensive education component (with research updates in research programs), deliver mental health screening and support after myocardial infarction, and provide longitudinal sessions to support maintenance of lifestyle modifications. These services were identified in Phase I and verified in Phase II. CONCLUSION: We identified 4 priorities for services in clinical programs designed for patients with premature ASCVD and their families. Further research should be done to elucidate their outcomes and most effective methods to provide these services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".