Telemedical Intervention and Its Effect on Quality of Life in Chronic Heart Failure Patients: The Results from the Telemedicine and e-Health Solution Pilot Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Heart failure (HF) is not only a common cardiovascular disease with a poor prognosis. Its prevalence in developed countries equals 1–2% of the general population of adults, while in Poland HF, patients constitute 3.2% of the total population. Modern heart failure treatment should be focused not only on reducing the risk of death and the number of readmissions due to HF exacerbation but quality of life as well. Telemedicine has been suggested as a viable tool for enhancing HRQL. Therefore, we present the results of telemedical intervention in a group of HF patients and its effect on quality of life in chronic heart failure patients from a pilot study dedicated to reducing social inequalities in health through the use of telemedicine and e-health solutions. (2) Method: The project was a multicenter, open, non-controlled trial conducted by the University of Rzeszów, Poland. The data points were collected in the June 2023–December 2023 period from fourteen primary care units from five voivodeships, mostly considered social exclusion areas. A total of 52.7% of the patients recruited were Podkarpackie Voivodeship inhabitants. The result and discussion are presented based on the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHFQ) and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQVAS). (3) Results: During the program, a total of over 100,000 telemedicine examinations were conducted in the form of body weight measurement, heart rate, blood pressure tests, and 7-day Holter or 14-day event Holter assessment. Over the course of this study, coordinating the pilot program medical staff has ordered 570 changes in the patient’s pharmacotherapy, confirming the positive impact on quality of life in the study group. (4) Conclusions: A comprehensive telemedical intervention can contribute to an improvement in the quality of life of patients with HF beyond what was achieved with the basic standard of care in the group of HF patients from the social exclusion region. It is now unclear if the result of the basic telemedical intervention would be constant after discontinuation of the mentioned pilot program.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".