Testing a nurse-led, pre-implantation educational intervention for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates: a randomized feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) deliver therapy for life-threatening arrhythmias. Evidence suggests that ICD candidates have misconceptions regarding ICD therapy and unmet information needs. We undertook a pilot feasibility trial comparing a nurse-led educational intervention plus standard care, vs. standard pre-ICD implantation care. Secondary aims included examination of anxiety, quality of life, and shock anxiety. METHODS AND RESULTS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates were consented and randomized to standard pre-ICD implantation care vs. standard care plus a nurse-led educational intervention. The primary feasibility outcomes included: recruitment rate, consent rate, randomization rate, proportion of participants able to complete all questionnaires, time to deliver intervention, and intervention topics completion. At baseline, demographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety scores were collected. Four weeks post-ICD implantation, participants completed the PROMIS, Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS), and Florida Shock Anxiety Scale (FSAS). Twenty patients consented (10 per group). Feasibility targets were achieved for all but two outcomes: consent rate was 87% vs. 95% target, and completion of data collection measures was 85% vs. 90% target. Consent rate was lower than expected as one patient declined, and two could not be approached. Completion rate was lower than expected as two patients were lost to follow-up, and one did not receive an ICD during the study period, leading to incomplete post-implantation survey collections. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a trial comparing a nurse-led pre-implantation educational intervention to standard care in an outpatient setting. Further study to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention on patient-reported outcomes is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".