Insecure attachment moderates women's adjustment to inflammatory bowel disease severity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Insecure attachment was explored as a moderator of the relationship between disease severity and psychosocial variables in a study of adjustment in women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHOD: Participants were 218 women recruited through notices placed in the community, in gastroenterologists' offices, and through online postings to support groups and message boards specifically for people with Crohn's disease, colitis, or IBD in general. Participants completed a mail-in or online survey assessing severity and frequency of symptoms, attachment style (separated into anxious and avoidant subscales), perceived social support, negative affect, and efficacy of coping with IBD. RESULTS: Anxious and avoidant attachment styles were correlated positively with disease severity and negative affect and negatively with perceived social support and coping efficacy. Hierarchical regressions indicated that disease severity was most strongly associated with negative affect for high avoidant attachment, as compared with moderate and low avoidant attachment. Disease activity was inversely related to perceived social support and coping efficacy for high and moderate, but not low, anxious attachment. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that attachment moderates associations between disease severity in women with different kinds of IBD and psychological indicators of adjustment. Limitations and relationship to previous research on attachment and health are discussed.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".