Patient-Reported Outcomes From Patients With Heart Failure Participating in the Future Patient Telerehabilitation Program: Data From the Intervention Arm of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 37 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with heart failure, which is a growing burden on the health sector. Cardiac rehabilitation aims to improve patients' recovery, functional capacity, psychosocial well-being, and health-related quality of life. However, cardiac rehabilitation programs have poor compliance and adherence. Telerehabilitation may be a solution to overcome some of these challenges to cardiac rehabilitation by making it more individualized. As part of the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program, a digital toolbox aimed at enabling patients with heart failure to monitor and evaluate their own current status has been developed and tested using data from a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that the patient filled in every alternate week for 1 year. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the changes in quality of life and well-being among patients with heart failure, who are participants in the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program over the course of 1 year. METHODS: In total, 140 patients were enrolled in the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program and randomized into either the telerehabilitation group (n=70) or the control group (n=70). Of the 70 patients in the telerehabilitation group, 56 (80.0%) answered the patient-reported outcome questionnaire and completed the program, and these 56 patients comprised the study population. The patient-reported outcomes consisted of three components: (1) questions regarding the patients' sleep patterns assessed using the Spiegel Sleep Questionnaire; (2) measurements of physical limitations, symptoms, self-efficacy, social interaction, and quality of life assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in 10 dimensions; and (3) 5 additional questions regarding psychological well-being that were developed by the research group. RESULTS: The changes in scores during 1 year of the study were examined using 1-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. There were significant differences in the scores for most of the slopes of the scores from the dimensions of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in clinical and social well-being and quality of life during the 1-year period of participating in a telerehabilitation program. These results suggest that patient-reported outcome questionnaires may be used as a tool for patients in a telerehabilitation program that can both monitor and guide patients in mastering their own symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03388918; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03388918.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".