Sex Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Immediate Recovery Period After Resuscitation: Findings From the Cross-sectional DenHeart Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A paucity of resuscitation studies have examined sex differences in patient-reported outcomes upon hospital discharge. It remains unclear whether male and female patients differ in health outcomes in their immediate responses to trauma and treatment after resuscitation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in patient-reported outcomes in the immediate recovery period after resuscitation. METHODS: In a national cross-sectional survey, patient-reported outcomes were measured by 5 instruments: symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), illness perception (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire [B-IPQ]), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]), quality of life (Heart Quality of Life Questionnaire), and perceived health status (12-Item Short Form Survey). RESULTS: Of 491 eligible survivors of cardiac arrest, 176 (80% male) participated. Compared with male, resuscitated female reported worse symptoms of anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety score ≥8) (43% vs 23%; P = .04), emotional responses (B-IPQ) (mean [SD], 4.9 [3.12] vs 3.7 [2.99]; P = .05), identity (B-IPQ) (mean [SD], 4.3 [3.10] vs 4.0 [2.85]; P = .04), fatigue (ESAS) (mean [SD], 5.26 [2.48] vs 3.92 [2.93]; P = .01), and depressive symptoms (ESAS) (mean [SD], 2.60 [2.68] vs 1.67 [2.19]; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Between sexes, female survivors of cardiac arrest reported worse psychological distress and illness perception and higher symptom burden in the immediate recovery period after resuscitation. Attention should focus on early symptom screening at hospital discharge to identify those in need of targeted psychological support and rehabilitation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".