'Patient-Empowerment Programme’ against standard care in advanced heart failure patients - a randomized controlled trial / Mohd Zhafran Zainal Abidin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Progressive Muscle Relaxation Therapy (PMRT) and Energy conservation technique (ECT) has been used among chronic illness patients to reduce symptoms burden and improve quality of life. However, data regarding these therapies among advanced heart failure patients remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of PMRT and ECT on functional capacity, symptoms assessment scores and quality of life amongst advanced heart failure patients. Methods: This was a 12-week, two-arm, parallel, non-blinded, randomized control trial in a single centre. The study compared 42 patients receiving standard care (SC) against 48 patients receiving “Patient-Empowerment Programme (PEP)” (SC+PMRT+ECT). 90 advanced heart failure patients were enrolled. The intervention group received two PEP reinforcement sessions four weeks apart. Patients were asked to implement the programme at least three times a week at home, using an audio-visual aid. Assessment tools comprised of questionnaires on demographics, 6-minute walking test (6MWT), New York Heart Association (NYHA) classifications, Revised version of the Edmonton Symptoms Assessment System (ESAS-r), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification and McGill Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MQOL-R) administered on recruitment and upon study completion. Result: 76 (84.4%) were male. Mean age was 59.93 years (+ 11.16) and majority was from the lower income group. There was a 11.99m (95%CI: 5.99, 15.98) (p <0.05) improvement in the 6MWT between intervention and standard group. All symptoms showed improvement after intervention, however, only the depression and anxiety items were significant. There was improvement in the fatigue scale, functional status and quality of life in the intervention group however it is not statistically significant. Conclusion: ECT and PMRT are useful in reducing depression and anxiety scores, and improve the 6MWT distance. A larger sample size and longer study duration should be conducted to validate this result
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".