ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Psychosocial Cardiological Schedule-Revised (PCS-R) in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit: Reflections Upon Data Collection (2010-2017) and New Challenges.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- MASCoD-Multidimensional Assessment of Subjective Cognitive Decline.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Psychosocial Cardiological Schedule (PCS) was developed as a screening tool for patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) to detect clinically relevant psychosocial/cognitive problems requiring psychological assessment/intervention. Filled out by a trained nurse, it classifies patients according to their need or not for a psychological interview and intervention provided by the psychologist (PCS-Yes vs. PCS-No).
aimsThe main aim was to compare PCS data collected, respectively, in 2010 and 2017, regarding patients' socio-demographic characteristics, clinical variables, and the inclusion criteria for psychological counseling. Subsequently, the original Italian PCS was revised and an English version of the schedule was provided [PCS-Revised (PCS-R)].
results28 patients (aged 53.5 + 12.6 years, M = 20) of the 87 recruited in 2010 vs. 35 (aged 64.9 + 12.7 years, M = 28) of the 83 recruited in 2017 met the criteria for PCS-Yes: age < 55 years, social problems (living alone, no social support), manifest psychological/behavioral problems, suspected neuropsychological disorders, low prescription adherence, inadequate disease awareness. Comparing the two samples (2010 vs. 2017), clinical variables were similar, and the need for a psychological interview did not differ substantially (32.2 vs. 42.2%), but age increased significantly (PCS-Yes: 53.5 ± 12.6 vs. 64.9 ± 12.7 years,
conclusionThe data comparison highlight changes in the cardiac population, which is aging and more frequently requires neuropsychological assessment. The PCS-R could be considered in clinical practice as a useful screening tool to implement a timely coordinated interdisciplinary intervention, comprehensive of specific and tailored psychotherapeutic techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.