Couples' Ratings of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients' Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare perceptual differences between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and their non-COPD spouses regarding the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Sixty-seven community-dwelling COPD patients and their non-COPD spouses participated. Participants completed the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). On both questionnaires, spouses' perceptions of patients' HRQOL were lower than those of the patients themselves. At the bivariate level, statistically significant differences were found on the SIP in the physical domain and on the SGRQ in the psychosocial domain. At the multivariate level, the age and gender of both the patients and spouses accounted for 22% of score differences in the psychosocial domain of HRQOL for the SGRQ. Discordance was greatest among the oldest couples with female non-COPD spouses. Domain-specific HRQOL differences provide direction for supportive nursing interventions to enhance coping among COPD couples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".