Does a Self-management Education Program Have the Same Impact on Emotional and Functional Dimensions of HRQoL?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most previous research evaluating the effect of interventions on HRQoL in COPD patients has focused on measuring HRQoL using aggregated questionnaire scores, increasing the risk of false-negative results. There is also evidence to suggest that self-evaluations of functional status are less likely to be modified over time relative to self-evaluation of emotional status. This study was a secondary analysis of a prospective study that compared the efficacy of a self-management education program (SM) on emotional and functional dimensions of HRQoL. One hundred and ten patients were recruited from the Sacré-Coeur Hospital of Montreal (Canada). Patients were included in either the SM group (n = 60) or the usual-care group (UC, n = 50). The SM group underwent a 4-week intervention based on content featured in "Living Well with COPD" program. Patients were assessed pre and 12-months post-intervention; the primary outcome was net change in the emotional and functional subscales scores of the St-George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Short-Form health survey questionnaire (SF-36). Only the emotional dimension scores of both the SGRQ (impact) and the SF-36 (mental component summary) were statistically and clinically improved in the SM group compared to UC. Also, the 12-month adjusted between-group difference in the SGRQ-impact scores was 3-fold higher than the minimum clinically important difference in SM vs. UC patients. HRQoL needs to be regarded as a combination of distinct self-evaluations with unique dynamics over time. This distinction should be taken into account in program development and evaluation, to choose intervention components likely to impact on both types of self-evaluations related to HRQoL.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".