An Outcomes Comparison between Nurse Practitioners and Primary Care Physicians in Quality of Life in Older Patients with Congestive Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a prevalent cardiovascular disease affecting patients' outcomes and quality of life. Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) are renowned for their positive impact on patient satisfaction and quality of life. However, the extent to which they achieve these results still needs to be explored. The study aimed to determine if the disease course of older CHF patients under NPs and PCPs remained consistent, focusing on patients' satisfaction levels in NP care compared to those in PCP care in primary care settings. A comparative observational design was used to recruit CHF patients aged 65 and above from nursing homes in Ontario, Canada. Subjects completed the 12-question questionnaire to gauge satisfaction and overall quality of life. Results were analysed using ANOVA as outcome indicators of the NPs and PCPs were to be compared.Findings showed no significant variation in quality of life score measurement between NP and PCP patients. Both (NPs and PCPs) were revealed to be equally strong in meeting the demanding CHF patients' needs. The study emphasises the crucial role of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) in multidisciplinary Team CHF care, highlighting their role in improving patient outcomes and healthcare delivery. It acknowledges the limitations of the measurement study, such as sample size, and contributes to ongoing debates on healthcare delivery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".