A perspective taking intervention to enhance family caregiver symptom assessment and improve symptom management for the heart failure patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community care of heart failure (HF) requires ongoing management often involving family caregivers (FCG). FCGs who misunderstand patients’ (PT) symptom experiences may contribute to poor symptom management. This study tested for improved perceptual agreement between the FCG and the PT after FCG’s were instructed to engage in perspective-taking. Davis’ (1990) organizational model of empathy guided this one-group pre-test/post-test interventional pilot study (n=14 dyads). Wilcoxon signed-rank test evaluated PT/FCG discrepancy scores on the HF Symptom Survey (HFSS) and the Empathic Responding Scale (ERS). A qualitative interview captured PT and FCG responses to the intervention. Six of 14 HFSS symptoms demonstrated significantly improved perceptual agreement along at least one of four symptom dimensions: frequency, severity, interference with physical activity, and interference with enjoyment of life. Study findings provided ongoing evidence in support of a perspective-taking intervention that has a promising effect on improving or sustaining FCG’s understanding of the PT’s symptom experiences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".