Validity of Self-reported Self-Care Assessment and Determinants of Self-Care Practices in Older Patients with Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Self-care as a disease management strategy in heart failure (HF) is important for the prevention of rehospitalisation, but it is difficult to assess and does not always reflect actual self-care practices. This study aimed to compare self-reported self-care assessments and actual self-care practices in older patients with HF and examine factors influencing self-care performance. Methods: We included 64 patients with HF aged ≥65 years who had been hospitalised and prescribed rehabilitation with stable symptoms between April 2019 and September 2020. We assessed the B-type natriuretic peptide levels and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), grip strength, and the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J). We used the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale (EHFScBS) to assess self-care behaviour in patients with HF. The patients filled in a self-assessment chart during their stay, which was used to work out the self-care implementation rate. Results: No significant correlation between the self-care implementation rate and the EHFScBS was identified (r= −0.160, p=0.207). Multiple regression analysis of factors associated with the rate of self-care and EHFScBS revealed that age, NYHA classification, SPPB and MoCA-J scores were significantly associated with the rate of self-care; however, no factors were associated with EHFScBS. The results were similar irrespective of the presence or absence of cognitive decline. Conclusion: In older patients with HF, the self-reported assessment of self-care did not reflect actual self-care performance. A reliable self-care behaviour scale needs to be developed.
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".