Assessment of Coping Strategies and Their Associations With Health Related Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: the Brief COPE Restructured
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic heart failure (CHF) need to cope with both the physical limitations and the psychological impacts of the disease. Since some coping strategies are beneficial and others are linked to increased mortality and worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL), it is important to have a reliable and valid instrument to detect different coping styles. Brief COPE, a self-reporting questionnaire, has been previously used in the context of CHF. There is, however, currently a lack of consensus about the theoretical or empirical foundations for grouping the multiple coping strategies assessed by Brief COPE into higher order categories of coping. The main purpose of this study was to examine the structure of Brief COPE, founded on the higher order grouping of its subscales in order to establish an assessment model supported by theoretical considerations. Furthermore, the associations between these higher order categories of coping and HRQoL were examined to establish the predictive validity of the selected model in the context of CHF. METHOD: One hundred eighty-three patients diagnosed with CHF were recruited at a heart failure outpatient clinic or at a cardiac ward. Self-reported questionnaires were filled in to measure coping strategies and HRQoL. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to investigate different hierarchical structures of Brief COPE found in the literature to assess coping strategies in patients with CHF. Regression analyses explored associations of aggregated coping strategies with HRQoL. RESULTS: A four factorial structure of Brief COPE displayed the most adequate psychometric properties, consisting of problem focused coping, avoidant coping, socially supported coping and emotion focused coping. Avoidant coping was associated with worse HRQoL in CHF. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for a four-factor model of coping strategies in patients with CHF. This could facilitate assessment of coping both in clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".