Exploring the Mechanism of Effectiveness of a Psychoeducational Intervention in a Rehabilitation Program (CopenHeartRFA) for Patients Treated With Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients treated for atrial fibrillation with an ablation can experience decreased mental health. Little is known about the effect of a psychoeducation intervention on this patient group. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the effect of a psychoeducation intervention on patients' mental health after participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program, with a focus on elaborating on the lack of mental health improvements. METHOD: Sequential explanatory mixed methods including secondary analysis of qualitative and quantitative data collected in a randomized rehabilitation trial was performed. Perceived health was measured by a questionnaire (n = 95), and qualitative interviews were performed (n = 10). RESULTS: Patients scoring high on perceived health experienced positive effects of the intervention. Patients scoring low appear to have either low physical capacity and severe atrial fibrillation symptoms, bigger life issues, or lack of social support. CONCLUSION: A more in-depth understanding of the effect of a psychoeducational intervention included in a cardiac rehabilitation program has been achieved.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".