MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1650639398 · doi:10.14740/cr385w

Assessment of Coping Strategies and Their Associations With Health Related Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: the Brief COPE Restructured

2015· article· en· W1650639398 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStiftelsen SilviahemmetStiftelsen SolstickanStockholms Läns LandstingKarolinska InstitutetRiksförbundet HjärtLungRobert J. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation
KeywordsCoping (psychology)MedicineClinical psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisHeart failureOutpatient clinicPsychologyStructural equation modelingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it