A nursing intervention to enhance acceptance \nof implantable cardioverter defibrillators : a randomized pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients may experience anxiety and reduced \nquality of life after implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) \ndevice implantation. \nObjective: To assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the Approach Caring and Cognitive Behavioural \n(PRO-CARE) intervention, aimed at improving ICD device \nacceptance and psycho-functional outcomes one month after \nimplantation. \nMethods: The pilot study involved 30 patients randomized to the \nintervention (IG) or control (CG) groups. The three encounters \nof the PRO-CARE intervention addressed patient-specific ICD \nconcerns by focusing on beliefs leading to lower device acceptance \nand psycho-functional outcomes. \nResults: Thirteen (87%) of the 15 IG patients received all three \nencounters. The intervention was both feasible and acceptable. \nAlthough not statistically significant, mean scores on ICD device \nacceptance, shock, and general anxiety favoured the IG. \nConclusions: Further research is needed to replicate results from \nthis pilot study, but our observations suggest that nurses need \nto assess ICD patient anxiety and to tailor their interventions \naccordingly.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".