Is Health Related Quality Of Life of people living with chronic conditions related to patient satisfaction with care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 50% of people over the age of 30 live with at least one chronic condition that influences their Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). No uniform framework for conceptualization of HRQOL is currently recognized, although several important domains have been identified. Recently, satisfaction with care has been suggested as an important component to be included in the measures of HRQOL. Purpose: The objective of this review is to explore what is known from the literature about the relationship between satisfaction with care and HRQOL in patients living with chronic conditions. Methods: A scoping review methodology guided this work. Results: The results support the observation of a positive correlation between satisfaction with care and HRQOL; however, the directionality of the relationships could not be established. Although change in the way we organize and provide treatment might not be expected to lead to a significant change in functional performance of the individuals, we can potentially affect people’s perception of disability, and improve their control and coping with the illness. Conclusions: The review highlights the importance of using appropriate and psychometrically sound measures when assessing HRQOL. Studies are needed that explore longitudinally the relationships between the care experiences and HRQOL.Implications for RehabilitationHRQOL and satisfaction with careSupportive relationships and good communication with health care providers can be expected to ease some of the burden and stress experienced by people living with and managing chronic conditions.The results of this scoping review support the observation of a positive correlation between satisfaction with care and HRQOL, however, the directionality needs further investigation.When looking for an outcome measure, it is important to consider what attributes the tool was designed to assess, and whether its content and properties are applicable to one?s clinical/research interest.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".