Timing for delivering individualized patient education intervention to coronary artery bypass graft patients: A RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The primary focus of this study is on the timing of the delivery of education to patients who had CABG surgery. Aim: To determine the efficacy of an individualized telephone patient education intervention, delivered at two different points in time (1–2 days pre-discharge versus 1–2 days post-discharge) in enhancing the CABG patient's knowledge of self-care behaviours, performance of self-care behaviours, and symptom frequency. Method: A randomized clinical trial that included a convenience sample of first time CABG patients. Individuals who received education pre-discharge were compared to individuals who received education post-discharge on the outcomes. Results: Results indicated no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the two time points. As well, anxiety levels were found to be significantly higher in the pre-discharge group than the post-discharge group. Conclusions: The individualized nature of the educational intervention may have accounted for non-significant findings reported in outcomes between the two time points. Practice implications: Nurses may consider assessing anxiety levels prior to delivery of educational interventions, implement interventions aimed at reducing anxiety levels, and provide individualized teaching.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".