A qualitative study on men’s experiences of health after treatment for ischaemic heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Globally, ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is one of the leading causes of mortality among men, and the health management of men is pivotal to prevention and recovery. Many men delay help-seeking and lack knowledge of disease symptomologies. Thus, the aim was to explore how men experience and manage their health while suffering from ischaemic heart disease and having received treatment with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study applied a qualitative approach designed within a phenomenological-hermeneutical methodology. Interviews were conducted between April and November 2019 with a criterion sample of 21 male patients within 1-2 weeks post-discharge. The analysis was guided by Paul Ricoeur's theory of text interpretation. After analysing the interviews, the following themes were identified: A functioning body as health, illuminating how a functioning body leads to a feeling of independence; misinterpreting signs of illness showing how symptoms are interpreted as signs of ageing rather than disease; and navigating life with ischaemic heart disease focusing on how men retain or maintain health after the threat to life. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide insight into men's health and their health management: illuminating how a functioning body can give men a sense of freedom and control, making it difficult to interpret signs of illness, and thus, failing to seek help and feel motivated to make changes when facing a serious health threat. These perspectives should be considered when planning future care and communication with male patients.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".