MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W200060247

[Anxiety and physical limitation: a complex relation].

2002· article· en· W200060247 on OpenAlexaff
Éliane Léger, Robert Ladouceur, MH Freeston

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryAnxietyPsychologyNeuroticismClinical psychologyCognitionHospital Anxiety and Depression ScalePsychiatrySomatic anxietyDepression (economics)Multiple sclerosisPersonality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychological problems affecting physically handicapped individuals are understudied. However, some studies suggest a higher risk of developing an elevated level of anxiety among these individuals. A previous study reported that people with multiple sclerosis show more anxiety than patients suffering from another type of physical limitations. These results raise questions about the specificity of the link between anxiety and some medical conditions. The aim of the present study is to increase our understanding of manifestations of anxiety associated with degenerative illnesses. Three groups of patients with different physical limitations were compared on their level of anxiety and on various cognitive process. Groups were composed as: 1) 20 patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, 2) 18 patients diagnosed with another degenerative illness (either arthritis, muscular dystrophy or ataxia), and 3) 20 participants presenting a non-degenerative handicap. The 3 groups were not significantly different on age, sex and duration of the physical limitations. Symptoms of anxiety were measured with 3 questionnaires:1) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 2) the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, used to assess the tendency to worry, and 3) the Worry Domains Questionnaire, assessing diversity and intensivity of worry themes. In turn, cognitive processes were evaluated with 4 questionnaires: 1) the Acceptance of Disability scale, used to assess the person's level of acceptance regarding a disability, 2) the Interpretation of Disturbing Thoughts questionnaire, an idiographical measure about the interpretation of thoughts associated with a physical handicap, 3) the Intolerance of Uncertainty scale, presenting beliefs about uncertainty and its consequences, and 4) the Cognitive Avoidance questionnaire, to evaluate the tendency of avoiding disturbing thoughts and images. Participants completed all questionnaires alone and the experimenter was available to answer any questions. MANOVAs were used to compare the 3 groups on the studied variables. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences among groups for symptoms of anxiety and depression, tendency to worry and worry themes. Similarly, no significant differences were obtained on cognitive processes. The multiple sclerosis group and the other degenerative illness group were combined and compared to the non-degenerative handicap group. MANOVAs conducted on symptoms and cognitive processes did not yield any significant differences. Results of the present study seem to indicate that the type of physical limitations is not an indicator of the presence of specific anxiety symptoms or cognitive processes. On an exploratory basis, all participants were compared according to their level of acceptance of disability. Results indicated that a lower level of acceptance was significantly associated with more anxious and depressive symptoms, excessive worries, and a greater intolerance of uncertainty. It seems that acceptance of disability plays a key role in maintaining psychological distress among people with a physical handicap. The influence of intolerance of uncertainty on acceptance of disability needs to be further explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207