Effectiveness of a multicentre randomized controlled trial with three different nurse-led intervention management programmes for patients with heart failure: the main results of the MEETinCY study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: A single-blinded, multicentred randomized controlled trial (RCT) was employed to examine the effectiveness of a 3-month telephone follow-up, a telephone follow-up with education before discharge, or education only before discharge on the heart failure (HF) knowledge, HF self-care management, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients with HF by a nurse specialist. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a multicentre RCT with three different intervention groups (IGs) and one control group. Participants in the first IG received education on HF self-management principles before discharge. The second IGs were enrolled to a 3-month telephone follow-up educational programme in addition to the pre-discharge educational session. The third IG received the telephone follow-up intervention only for 3 months. A total of 357 patients with HF were enrolled to the study of whom 262 participants completed the intervention. Outcome measures included HF-related QoL, HF self-care, and HF-related knowledge. Intervention effects were analysed using the Cohen d (rm) coefficient for repeated measurements and ANCOVA. There was a significant improvement in the physical dimension of the HR-QoL (F = 2.7, df = 3, P = 0.046) between the control group and in-person education group. In HF-related self-care, the telephone component alone or in combination with in-person education led to greater improvement than the control group (F = 3, df = 3, P = 0.034). Self-care practices were improved in the education and telephone arms as compared to the control group (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Education and telephone support on self-care management may improve the physical dimension of HR-QoL. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01905176.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".