Evaluating Statin Knowledge-Perceptions and Receptivity Following a Comprehensive Lifestyle Modification Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Though clinical guidelines for cholesterol-lowering therapies advocate for both a trial of lifestyle modification and the initiation of statin medication when appropriate, the extent to which lifestyle modification may alter a patient’s knowledge-perceptions and receptivity towards statins remains unclear. Methods Following completion of a 6-month comprehensive lifestyle modification program, perceived changes in knowledge and receptivity towards statins were examined across prespecified subgroups of age, sex, and statin eligibility using a mixed-methods questionnaire. Quantitative and qualitative analyses incorporated binomial tests, McNemar’s test, and thematic analyses. Results Among 192 patients who completed the program and exit questionnaire between December 15, 2020 and July 2, 2021, 88.4% of patients indicated a perceived improvement in cholesterol and/or statin knowledge (P < . 0001 ). 48.2% of patients acknowledged that their receptivity towards taking statins increased (P = . 61 ). Changes in receptivity were attributed to several identified program themes including improvements in health knowledge and awareness, motivation and empowerment. Patients who noted improvements in their mental health also reported significantly increased receptivity towards statins (P < . 001 ). Conclusions Patients’ perceived knowledge and receptivity towards statins may improve following participation in a comprehensive therapeutic lifestyle modification program. Future research must evaluate the impact of these programs on statin uptake, compliance and outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".