Trajectoire et vécu des personnes traitées pour un infarctus du myocarde en région éloignée : étude exploratoire descriptive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : Cardiovascular disease is on the rise and is the second leading cause of death among Canadians. Background : The care pathway followed by myocardial infarction patients in remote areas has an impact on their continuity of care.Objective : To describe the care pathway of myocardial infarction patients living in a remote area.Methods : A qualitative formative research design was used. Two samples were created, the first comprising sixteen people who had undergone a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and the second made up of four health professionals working in Family Medicine Groups (FMGs).Results : Eight steps were identified and three priority needs were raised, namely : 1) understanding the pathway of care and services ; 2) effectively communicating health information to the various establishments ; and 3) setting up follow-up by FMG health professionals when the patient returns home.Discussion : Nurses play a key role in all steps of the pathway and in meeting patients’ needs.Conclusion : The care and service pathway are suboptimal but the same for participants from this remote area.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".