MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386360651 · doi:10.12968/bjca.2022.0134

The emotional burden of living with ischaemic heart disease: an artistic approach

2023· article· en· W4386360651 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila O’Keefe-McCarthy, Isaac Mussie, Karyn Taplay, H Logan Michaelson, Rosaleen Faleiro

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cardiac Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsNiagara Health SystemBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingMedicineIschaemic heart diseasePsychological interventionDiseaseThe artsPsychiatryPsychologyPathologySocial psychologyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aims A diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease may cause the individual to enter a state of emotional uncertainty. The authors aimed to provide an arts-based account of the emotional burden experienced by people with ischaemic heart disease. Methods A secondary qualitative analysis of 35 interview with individuals with ischaemic heart disease was conducted. The results from the interview transcripts were analysed and depicted using an arts-based approach, in the form of poetry, musical lyrics and visual art. Results Participants described an overwhelming sense of loss following a diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease, including feeling a loss of control in their lives, loss of self, loss of agency in managing the illness and a loss of hope for the future. The emotional burden that patients carried was likened to going through a grieving process. Three poems, one song and two visual art pieces were created by the authors to depict the emotional burden experienced by the participants. Conclusions Supportive interventions that apply arts-based approaches to practice could be beneficial to target the psychological needs and emotional burden of patients following diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Cardiac NursingSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207