Disparity in Perceived Illness Intrusiveness and Illness Severity Between Cardiac Patients and Their Spouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recovery following a cardiac event is a complex physiological and psychological process that seldom occurs in isolation. The interdependence of a marital relationship may result in the spouse influencing the patient's overall recovery and the psychological well-being of both. The aim of the study was to assess whether perceived illness intrusiveness and illness severity differed between cardiac patients and their spouses and whether their perceptions were modified by treatment received. A thematic analysis of written feedback from patients and spouses informed the interpretation of the quantitative results. METHODS: Sixty-two male cardiac patients and their female spouses completed the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale and Perceived Severity of Illness Scale. Participants also provided written comments about anticipated life changes. A 2-way mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare patient and spouse scores. RESULTS: There were no differences in terms of perceived illness intrusiveness. A statistically significant higher level of perceived illness severity was reported by spouses whose husbands had cardiac surgery (difference = 48.8 points, F1,59 = 23.2, P = .001). Five themes emerged from the written responses of the patients: anticipated lifestyle change, change in self-perception, reprioritization, enhanced quality of life, and uncertainty. Four themes emerged from the spouses: taking on responsibility, uncertainty, enhanced quality of life, and getting back to normal. CONCLUSIONS: Spouses of cardiac surgery patients had different perceptions about illness than their patient-partner. Future research should be directed toward a better understanding of how divergent illness beliefs develop during the recovery period, and how they impact physical and psychological well-being.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".