Confronting life with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older people with rheumatoid arthritis are confronted with a variety of chronic stressors on a daily basis. Living with rheumatoid arthritis means learning to cope with physical limitations, fatigue, losing mobility and independence, pain, uncertainty and role changes related to periods of exacerbation and remission. There is a paucity of literature that addresses the stress and coping processes over time for older people who have had rheumatoid arthritis since midlife. AIM: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe, at three points in time and over two 6-month intervals, the illness-related stressors perceived by older people diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis since midlife; their stress-related emotions and the coping strategies they used to manage the illness-related stressors. METHODS: A longitudinal, descriptive design was used to assess older people's perceptions of illness-related stress, their stress emotions and the coping strategies used to manage the illness-related stressors. Findings. The majority of participants most frequently identified physical limitations as their illness-related stressors, harm as the stress emotion they experienced, and use of confrontive coping strategies to manage the stress associated with rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide nurses with a better understanding of the experiences, emotions and coping strategies used by older people to manage the adversity of rheumatoid arthritis in daily living.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".