What is the experience of men and women with congestive heart failure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congestive heart failure (CHF) is increasing in incidence and prevalence in both men and women in Canada. Research findings to date have been inconsistent with respect to whether gender differences influence quality of life, treatment and survival. There is a paucity of qualitative research describing the experience of patients with CHF This qualitative case study approach used semistructured interviews with women and men with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class three or four CHF who were referred to a CHF clinic. In addition to quality of life measures, data related to medical history, medical management and NYHA scores were collected to offer a thorough description of these clients' experiences. Three hypotheses were generated from 13 themes that emerged. First, the psychosocial impact of CHF outweighs the physical impact. Second, sex differences exist in relation to living with CHF with men being more accepting of CHF and more likely to experience social isolation and loss than women, while women are more likely to describe fear. Third, the experience of CHF is influenced by age with physical experiences and depression mentioned more frequently in younger age groups. Findings from this study have generated nursing implications and recommendations for further research.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".