MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The trajectory of self-care over a 12-month period in patients with heart failure, comparing those with consistently good and poor self-care

2024· article· en· W4403814442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leonie Klompstra, Anna Strömberg, Tiny Jaarsma

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing care and research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSelf careHeart failurePeriod (music)Intensive care medicineCardiologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Self-care behaviour plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of life for patients with heart failure (HF) and reducing mortality and morbidity rates, but many patients struggle with suboptimal self-care behaviours. It is crucial to understand the factors influencing long-term self-care management. Purpose To assess the trajectory of self-care over a 12-month period and assess differences between patients who have constantly good self-care over a 12-month period compared to constantly poor self-care. Method This study use data from a randomised controlled intervention study, called the HF-Wii study. We included patients who had complete data on self-care during on baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Self-care was measured with the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour scale (EHFSBs). A threshold score of equal or higher than 70 was used to define self-care behaviour as good and a score lower than 70 as poor self-care. Based on literature, the following characteristics (collected from questionnaires and medical records at baseline) were considered in the analysis: age, sex, marital status, education, history of myocardial infarction, duration of HF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, LVEF, comorbidity. Other factors assessed were Health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL, Minnesota living with HF questionnaire), depressive symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), sleep (Minimal Insomnia Symptom Scale) and level of HF knowledge (Dutch HF knowledge scale). Logistic regression was performed with backwards elimination of the factors considered associated with the differences between patients who have constantly good self-care at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months compared to constantly poor self-care. Results In total, 407 patients were included in this study. At baseline, the mean self-care was 65±21, with 41% of the patients (n=245) performing good self-care. In total, 126 patients had a constantly good self-care over 12 month (31%), 120 patients had a constantly bad self-care over 12 months (30%) and 161 (39%) fluctuated in their self-care (Figure). In the multivariate analysis, patients that had continuously good self-care over 12-months were of older age (68±10 vs. 64±12, odds ratio (OR) 1.061, P-value<0.001), had higher HF knowledge (score 13±2 vs. 12±2, OR 1.439, P-value<0.001) and had higher HrQoL (score 28±20 vs 36±22, OR 0.984, P-value=0.022). compared to patients with consistently poor self-care. The variance was explained by 20%. Conclusion Younger patients with HF tend to struggle with consistent self-care over a year, underscoring the necessity for tailored interventions for this group. Conversely, patients with greater HF knowledge and higher HrQoL maintained good self-care habits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicNursing care and researchFrench-language works237,207