The Relation of Social Support-Seeking to Quality of Life in Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social support-seeking has been shown to improve the outcome of schizophrenia. However, no study to date has documented the impact of social support seeking on self-perceived quality of life in schizophrenia, particularly not on the relation between symptoms and quality of life. The present study explored this issue with a sample of 58 outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia without comorbidity. Social support seeking, symptoms (positive, negative, and extrapyramidal), and multidimensional self-reported quality of life were assessed cross-sectionally. Negative symptoms were inversely related to the quality of life domain of activities of daily living. Other symptoms and social support-seeking were not related to quality of life, and social support-seeking did not interact with symptoms in their relation to quality of life. Social support-seeking may thus not be beneficial (nor disruptive) as a way of coping with symptoms in schizophrenia. More studies are needed in order to investigate the relation of social support-seeking to symptoms and to quality of life in serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, so that interventions with persons suffering from these disorders may be better guided.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".