The Experience of Adults with Multimorbidity: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Findings from several countries indicate that the prevalence of multimorbidity is very high among clients of primary healthcare. A deeper understanding of patients' experiences from their own perspective can greatly enrich any intervention to help them live as well as possible with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To describe the fundamental structure of adults' experience with multimorbidity. DESIGN: A phenomenological study was undertaken to describe the experiences of 11 adults with multimorbidity. These adults participated in two semi-structured interviews, the content of which was rigorously analyzed. RESULTS: At the core of the study participants' multimorbidity experience are the impression of aging prematurely, difficulties with self-care management, and issues with access to the healthcare system, which contribute to the problem's complexity. Despite these issues, participants with multimorbidity report attempting to take control of their situation and adjusting to daily living. CONCLUSIONS: The description of this experience, through the systemic vision of participants, provides a better understanding of the realities experienced by people with multimorbidity. Journal of Comorbidity 2014;4:11-21.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".