Occupational Performance Coaching for Adults with Heart Failure: Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) usually experience functional disabilities and face participation challenges. Self-care behavior is an essential component of long-term management of HF. Purpose: This study aims to investigate the effect of occupational performance coaching (OPC) on self-care behaviors and participation in people with HF. Method: This study is a parallel group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of 44 adults with HF, to evaluate the efficacy of OPC. Patients will be randomly allocated (1:1) into two groups. Both groups will receive usual self-care education and the intervention group will receive eight weekly sessions of OPC as well. We will measure the primary and secondary outcomes at baseline, 8, and 12 weeks after the intervention initiation. Implications: If OPC is superior to usual self-care education on improving self-care behavior and participation, the finding will support the integration of OPC into practice to improve participation and self-care behaviors of HF 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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.007 |
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".