Patients' quality of life after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an increasingly widespread therapy method. It is associated with many socio-psychological and physical risks. Forty-four subjects, who were clinically monitored at the Bolzano BMT Centre including a follow-up period of at least 3 months, completed the questionnaire Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplantation (version 4). Semi-structured, problem-oriented interviews were conducted with seven randomly selected subjects, the results of which were subjected to a summarising content analysis according to Mayring. The results from the quantitative and qualitative parts were compared based on triangulation. In the random sample, 22.7% stated that they were highly satisfied with their current quality of life (QOL). Throughout all dimensions of the questionnaire, women showed lower scores than men. The results revealed a positive correlation between the post-HSCT period and QOL (r(s)=0.338, P=0.025), especially regarding the social/family (r(s)=0.411, P=0.006) and emotional well-being (r(s)=0.306, P=0.043). The interviews primarily revealed dependence and inability to work. The support received from family, friends and hospital staff and the shift in priorities because of the transplantation were perceived as positive. The comparison mainly leads to corresponding results of the quantitative and qualitative parts of the study. Patient self-rating using questionnaires and interviews plays a direct and relevant role in the assessment of the QOL after allogeneic HSCT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".