Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patient Well-Being and Its Relationship with Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Real-Life Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life is an umbrella concept that refers to all aspects of a person's life, including health status and well-being. While health status measure focuses on the impact of the disease on physical functioning, well-being represents the self-representation of the emotional states related to the disease itself. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychological well-being and its determining factors in a real-life chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population and to evaluate if patients with a different well-being differ in illness perception, health status and alexithymia. METHODS: Psychological well-being (Psychological General Well-Being Index), health status (SF-36), illness perception (Illness Perception Questionnaire), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale), as well as clinical parameters were assessed in COPD out-patients. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-four patients, with a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 58.5%, were recruited. Forty percent of them had a moderately/severely impaired well-being, not correlated with forced expiratory volume in 1 s and the Charlson index value but significantly with the Medical Research Council score (p = 0.0001) that appeared to be the dominant factor. Patients with impaired well-being showed a different illness perception in terms of correct identification of symptoms, disease consequences, emotional representation and confidence in treatment compared with those having a positive well-being. The latter presented a lower alexithymia prevalence and a better health status. CONCLUSIONS: In order to minimize the disease-negative effects on patients' lives, assessment of well-being and its determining factors, as well as planning specific behavioural, educational and therapeutic interventions seem to be relevant and useful.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".