Stress Coping, Distress, and Health Perceptions in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Community Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compares a community inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) sample of individuals with a matched non-IBD community sample of individuals on psychological functioning and health perceptions. METHODS: Participants in the population-based Manitoba IBD Cohort Study (n=388) were directly compared with sex-, age-, and region-matched controls from a national random-sample health survey on the aspects of psychological health, coping, and perceived general health. RESULTS: Overall, the IBD sample had lower psychological well-being and mastery, as well as higher distress than did the non-IBD controls (P<or=0.02). Those with IBD used avoidant coping significantly more often, and active coping modestly more often than did the non-IBD sample; both had similar levels of "self-soothing" behaviors. Patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis had similarly poor levels of functioning along these dimensions compared with the non-IBD sample, as did those with active disease (P<0.01). However, those with inactive disease were similar to the non-IBD sample, and had modestly higher mastery levels. Whereas nearly half of the non-IBD group reported chronic health conditions, those with IBD were threefold more likely to report poorer health (odds ratio 3.07, 95% confidence interval: 2.10-4.47). Psychological factors explained a greater amount of variance in perceived health for the IBD than for the non-IBD sample. CONCLUSIONS: Those with IBD have significantly poorer psychological health than do those without IBD and view their general health status more negatively, although adaptive stress-coping strategies were similar. However, when disease is quiescent there is little detriment to functioning. Active disease should be a flag to consider psychological needs in the care of an IBD patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".