Understanding social role participation: what matters to people with arthritis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of different social roles in the lives of people with osteoarthritis (OA), and satisfaction with time spent in roles and role performance, as well as the relationship of demographic, health, and psychological factors to role perceptions. METHODS: Sixty women and 27 men (age 42-86 yrs) with hip or knee OA were recruited from rehabilitation programs and community advertising. Participants completed interview-administered questionnaires measuring demographics, OA symptoms, activity limitations, and well-being (e.g., depression). They also completed the Social Role Participation Questionnaire (SRPQ) assessing the influence of arthritis on role salience and satisfaction across diverse role domains (e.g., close relationships, employment). RESULTS: Participants reported many salient roles, but low to moderate satisfaction with them related to OA. SRPQ dimensions of salience and satisfaction were distinct; satisfaction with time spent in roles and with role performance was highly correlated (r = 0.83). Lower role salience was associated with being older, having less education and income, and greater illness intrusiveness. Less satisfaction with time spent in roles due to OA was associated with being younger, greater pain, and greater illness intrusiveness, whereas less satisfaction with role performance was associated with greater illness intrusiveness and depression. CONCLUSION: This study addresses a gap -- the influence of OA on social role participation. It underscores the importance of taking into account individual perceptions of roles, and that these perceptions are multifaceted. Understanding diverse factors related to social roles may help identify individuals at risk for role difficulties and provide targets for interventions to improve role participation.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".