Illness Perceptions and COPD: An Emerging Field for COPD Patient Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have perceptions of their illness and its management that determine their coping behaviors (e.g., adherence, self-management) and, consequently, their outcomes. This article reviews the empirical literature on illness perceptions in patients with COPD to provide clinicians with information regarding the potential utility of incorporating illness perceptions into clinical COPD care. METHOD: A literature search in PubMed identified 16 studies examining associations between illness perceptions and outcomes in patients with COPD. RESULTS: Seven of the 16 papers were from US authors, followed by 3 each from the UK and The Netherlands, and one study each from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The first study was published in 1983, and the numbers of patients per study ranged fom 10 to 266. The illness perceptions were those delineated by two theoretical models (cognitive behavioral theory and the Common Sense Model), and they were assessed with open interviews and validated questionnaires. Outcomes were disability, quality of life, and psychological characteristics. The studies revealed clinically meaningful associations between illness perceptions and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review supports the incorporation of illness perceptions into clinical care for patients with COPD. The assessment of illness perceptions should be routine, similar to routine assessments of pulmonary function. Discussing and changing illness perceptions will improve COPD patients' quality of life and reduce their levels of disability. COPD-specific assessments ("diagnosis") of illness perceptions and COPD-specific intervention methods ("therapy") that help change inadequate and maladaptive illness perceptions are research priorities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".