MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996591632 · doi:10.1097/jcn.0000000000000627

Motivational Interviewing and Self-care Practices in Adult Patients With Heart Failure

2019· review· en· W2996591632 on OpenAlex
Tamara Sokalski, Alix Hayden, Shelley Raffin Bouchal, Pavneet Singh, Kathryn King‐Shier

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotivational interviewingMedicinePsycINFOMEDLINEHeart failurePopulationPsychological interventionHealth careFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heart failure contributes to frequent hospitalizations, large healthcare costs, and high mortality. Heart failure management includes patient adherence to strict self-care practices (ie, symptom recognition, limiting sodium and fluids, monitoring weight, maintaining an active lifestyle, and medication adherence as well as monitoring other medical conditions). These practices can be difficult to enact and maintain. Motivational interviewing, although not studied extensively in patients with heart failure, may enhance patients' abilities to enact and maintain self-care practices. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of motivational interviewing on self-care practices in the adult population with heart failure. METHODS: We conducted a narrative systematic review of peer-reviewed research literature focused on motivational interviewing in adult patients with heart failure. The following databases were searched from database inception to March 2019: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ERIC, Educational Resource Complete, and Scopus. Of 1158 citations retrieved, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Outcomes were focused on self-care adherence (ie, maintenance, management, confidence), physical activity/exercise, and knowledge of self-care. Motivational interviewing has been effectively used either alone or in combination with other therapies and has been used in-home, over the telephone, and in hospital/clinic settings, although face-to-face interventions seem to be more effective. A number of limitations were noted in the included studies. CONCLUSION: Motivational interviewing is a potentially effective adjunct to enhance self-care practices in patients with heart failure. Further high-quality research is needed to support changes in clinical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.282 · 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