Compliance to secondary prevention strategies for coronary artery disease: a hospital-based cross-sectional survey from Ernakulam, South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to report the compliance to secondary prevention strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD), such as smoking cessation, weight management, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol control, blood pressure control, glycaemic control, physical activity and cardiovascular drug therapy from a resource-limited setting. DESIGN: Analytical cross-sectional survey with data collection using questionnaire administered by study personnel. SETTING: Institutional-two tertiary care hospitals and two cardiology clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in the age group of 30-80 years with documented CAD with a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 6 years of follow-up after diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were the prevalence of individual compliance to secondary prevention strategies for CAD such as smoking cessation, weight management, LDL cholesterol control, blood pressure control, glycaemic control, physical activity and cardiovascular drug therapy. The secondary outcomes were the association of secondary prevention strategies with age, sex, domicile, socioeconomic status, insurance and type of treatment. RESULTS: We recruited a total of 1206 patients among whom 879 (72.9%) were males. The median age of patients was 62 (14) years. The compliance to smoking cessation was 93.86% (95% CI 91.66% to 96.06%), ideal body mass index was 63.76% (95% CI 61.05% to 66.47%), blood pressure control was 65.11% (95% CI 62.42% to 67.80%), LDL compliance was 36.50% (95% CI 33.18% to 39.82%), diabetes control was 51.23% (95% CI 46.10% to 56.36%) and adequate physical activity was 39.22% (95% CI 36.46% to 41.98%)respectively. Reported compliance for cardiovascular drugs therapy was 96% for antiplatelets, 89.4% for statins, 68.2% for beta blockers, 37.7% for renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockers, 81.28% for oral hypoglycaemic agents and 22% for insulin therapy. CONCLUSION: Compliance to secondary prevention strategies for CAD in resource limited settings are moderate. This needs further improvement for better outcomes related to CAD in future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".