MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W647510820 · doi:10.5372/1905-7415.0801.259

Factors predicting quality of life for coronary artery disease patients after percutaneous coronary intervention

2014· article· en· W647510820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aem-Orn Saengsiri, Sureeporn Thanasilp, Sunida Preechawong

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Biomedicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChulalongkorn University
KeywordsMedicineAnginaCoronary artery diseaseConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionQuality of life (healthcare)Ejection fractionInternal medicineCardiologyDepression (economics)Canadian Cardiovascular SocietyPhysical therapySocial supportMyocardial infarctionHeart failurePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: A clear understanding of factors affecting patients’ perception of quality of life (QOL) would be useful for improving continuous care in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. Objective: To examine the causal relationships between cardiac self-efficacy, social support, left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), angina, dyspnea, depression, vital exhaustion, functional performance, and QOL in CAD patients experiencing postpercutaneous coronary intervention (post-PCI). Methods: We used a research survey for causal analysis design to explore the theoretical linkage, guided by the revised Wilson and Cleary model, between QOL interest variables and patient QOL. The 303 subjects were all post-PCI CAD patients. All participants completed the following surveys: (1) a demographic data questionnaire, (2) a QOL Index (Cardiac version IV), (3) the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, (4) the Cardiac Self-efficacy Scale, (5) the Social Support Questionnaire, (6) the Rose Questionnaire for angina, (7) the Rose Dyspnea Scale, (8) the SF-36: vitality subscale, and (9) the Functional Performance Inventory Short-Form, with reliability ranging from 0.72 to 0.98. Data were analyzed using a linear structural relationship analysis. Results: The postulated model was found to fit the empirical data and explained 54% of the variance in quality of life (χ 2 = 1.90, df = 3, p = 0.59, χ 2 /df = 0.63, root mean square error of approximation = 0.00, Goodness of Fit Index = 0.99, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = 0.98). Social support, depression, and vital exhaustion were found to significantly and directly affect the QOL of post-PCI CAD patients. Cardiac self-efficacy was the only variable that had an indirect effect on quality of life (β = 0.21, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Health care providers should be aware of the significant effects of social support, depression, vital exhaustion, and self-efficacy on QOL, and develop appropriate nursing interventions to improve quality of life in post-PCI CAD patients.

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)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian BiomedicineSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207