Disease burden and patient reported outcomes among patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: an ethnography study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of psoriasis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: An ethnographic study of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis was conducted in the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Brazil, and Canada to explore patients' views on treatment and the impact of psoriasis on HRQoL. Anthropologists and ethnographers spent a minimum of 5.5 hours with each consented patient and filmed their behaviors in everyday situations. Visual data and notes were analyzed to identify HRQoL-related themes. RESULTS: The study included 50 adult patients. Patients described their appearance with disgust and self-loathing. Frustration was expressed due to a perceived lack of control of their lives. Prior to initiation of biologic treatment, daily rituals absorbed a good part of their day, including applying creams, checking one's appearance, and covering the body. Due to a lack of cultural discourse and patient's difficulty in articulating the impact of psoriasis, partners and family did not know how to react nor did they realize the full extent of the problem, and many patients experienced perceived social discrimination due to psoriasis, leaving them with feelings of isolation. Patients established on biologic treatment noticed a significant physical improvement and regained confidence, but psychosocial impacts, including social isolation, remained. CONCLUSION: This ethnographic study vividly depicted the unarticulated and emotional impact of psoriasis on the everyday lives of patients and presents an effective method of assessing HRQoL in chronic diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".