MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183706825 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.2312

Effect of patient‐centered transitional care services on patient‐reported outcomes in heart failure: sex‐specific analysis of the <scp>PACT‐HF</scp> randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3183706825 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vanessa Blumer, Anastasia Gayowsky, Feng Xie, Stephen J. Greene, Michelle M. Graham, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Dennis T. Ko, Lehana Thabane, Faı̈ez Zannad, Harriette G.C. Van Spall

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Alberta HospitalPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesImpactMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialHeart failureTransitional careQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineHealth careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: We assessed the effect of transitional care on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women and men hospitalized for heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this sex-specific analysis of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial in Canada, the effect of a patient-centered transitional care model was tested on pre-specified PROs of discharge preparedness (B-PREPARED score, range 0-22), quality of transition [Care Transitions Measure-3 (CTM-3) score, range 0-100], and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (EQ-5D-5L, range 0-1). Among 986 patients (47.4% women), B-PREPARED at 6 weeks was greater with the intervention than usual care [mean difference (MD) 4.01 (95% confidence interval-CI 2.90-5.12); P < 0.001], with no sex differences (P sex-interaction = 0.24). CTM-3 at 6 weeks was greater with the intervention than usual care [MD 10.52 (95% CI 6.00-15.04); P < 0.001], with no sex differences (P sex-interaction = 0.69). EQ-5D-5L was greater with intervention than usual care at discharge [MD 0.17 (95% CI 0.12-0.22); P < 0.001], 6 weeks [MD 0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.12); P = 0.02], and 6 months [MD 0.05 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.12); P = 0.09], although the 6-month difference was not statistically significant. At discharge, women reported lower EQ-5D-5L but experienced significantly greater treatment benefit than men (P sex-interaction = 0.02). Treatment effect on EQ-5D-5L was numerically greater in women than men at 6 weeks and 6 months, but there were no significant sex differences (P sex-interaction 0.18 and 0.19, respectively). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered transitional care model improved discharge preparedness, transition quality, and HRQOL in the weeks following heart failure hospitalization, with effects largely consistent in women and men. However, women reported lower HRQOL and experienced greater treatment benefit in this endpoint than men at hospital discharge. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02112227.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207