The Impact of Triangle Hierarchical Management on Self-Management Behavior and Quality of Survival in Parkinson's Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effect of Triangle tiered and graded management on the self-management behavior and quality of survival of Parkinson's Disease (PD) patients. Methods Eighty ambulatory PD patients admitted to the neurology outpatient clinic of our hospital from June 2020 to January 2021 were selected for the study. Eighty patients were divided into 40 cases each in the test group and the control group using the random number table method. Patients in the control group were given conventional treatment and care, while in the test group, Triangle hierarchical management was applied on the basis of the control group. Non-motor symptoms [assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Inventory (MoCA), the Scale for Outcomes in PD for Autonomic Symptoms disability Scale (SCOPA-DS) and the Nocturnal Scale (SCOPA-NS)], motor symptoms [assessed by the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), the Modified Ashworth Scale, and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III)], quality of life (assessed by Barthel Index), medication adherence (self-administered medication adherence questionnaire), quality of survival (assessed by the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Quality of Survival Questionnaire, PDQ-39), and self-management effectiveness (assessed by the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale, symptom management and disease co-management) were compared between the two groups before and after the intervention. The two groups were also observed for satisfaction with care. Results After the intervention, the MoCA score, FGA score, Barthel Index, Medication adherence and all scores of self-management effectiveness were significantly higher in the test group than in the control group ( P < 0.05); the SCOPA-DS score, SCOPA-NS score, Ashworth score, UPDRS-III score and PDQ-39 score were significantly lower than in the control group ( P < 0.05). Satisfaction with nursing care was significantly higher in the test group than in the control group ( P < 0.05). Conclusion The application of Triangle's tiered and graded management to the home care of ambulatory PD patients was effective in improving their non-motor and motor symptoms, their ability to perform daily activities, medication adherence and self-management effectiveness, and their overall survival outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".