MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033513507 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m1731

Interventions supporting long term adherence and decreasing cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction (ISLAND): pragmatic randomised controlled trial

2020· article· en· W3033513507 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Noah Ivers, Jon-David Schwalm, Zachary Bouck, Tara McCready, Monica Taljaard, Sherry L. Grace, Jennifer Cunningham, Beth Bosiak, Justin Presseau, Holly O. Witteman, Neville Suskin, Harindra C. Wijeysundera, Clare Atzema, R. Sacha Bhatia, Madhu K. Natarajan, Jeremy Grimshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityYork UniversityHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaHamilton Health SciencesWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversité LavalLawson Health Research InstitutePopulation Health Research Institute
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionPsychological interventionOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalPhysical therapyCoronary artery diseaseRehabilitationEmergency medicineFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To test a scalable health system intervention to improve long term adherence to secondary prevention treatments among patients who have had a recent myocardial infarction. Design Three arm, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Setting Nine cardiac centres in Ontario, Canada. Participants 2632 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease after a myocardial infarction, identified from a centralised cardiac registry. Interventions Participants were randomised 1:1:1 to receive usual care, five mail-outs developed through a user centred design process, or mail-outs plus phone calls. The phone calls were delivered first by an interactive automated system to screen for non-adherence to treatment. Trained lay health workers followed up as necessary. Interventions were coordinated centrally but delivered from each patient’s hospital site. Main outcome measures Co-primary outcomes were completion of cardiac rehabilitation and adherence to recommended medication. Data were collected by blinded assessors through patient report and from administrative health databases at 12 months. Results 2632 patients (mean age 66, 71% male) were randomised: 878 to the full intervention (mail plus phone calls), 878 to mail only, and 876 to usual care. Of the respondents, 174 (27%) of 643 in the usual care group, 200 (32%) of 628 in the mail only group, and 196 (37%) of 531 allocated to the full intervention completed cardiac rehabilitation (adjusted odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.03). In the mail plus phone group, 11.7%, 6.0%, 14.4%, 32.9%, and 35.0% reported adherence to 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 drug classes after one year, respectively, in comparison with 12.5%, 6.8%, 13.6%, 30.2%, and 36.8% in the mail only group, and 12.2%, 8.4%, 13.1%, 30.3%, and 36.1% in the usual care group, respectively (mail only v usual care, odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.19; full intervention v usual care, 0.99, 0.82 to 1.20). Conclusions Scalable interventions delivered by mail plus phone can increase completion of cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction but not adherence to medication. More intensive interventions should be tested to improve adherence to medication and to evaluate the association between attendance at cardiac rehabilitation and adherence to medication. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02382731 , registered 9 March 2015 before any patient enrolment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations68
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207