Assessment of stigma in patients with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research that explores stigma in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is limited. Productive cough, repeated lung infections, and periods of serious illness requiring hospitalizations are among common symptoms of CF. These symptoms may cause a negative perception by others. We developed a CF-specific Stigma Scale and tested its psychometric properties. METHODS: We conducted a focus group with 11 participants including adult patients with CF (n = 5) and their informal caregivers (n = 6). The thematic content of the focus group was analyzed to find key themes. We developed a CF-specific Stigma Scale and assessed its psychometric properties in a 3-month prospective cohort study of adult CF outpatients (n = 45). RESULTS: Stigma emerged as consistent concern for people living and caring for those with CF, affecting both patients' lives and health through the focus group. Using the newly developed CF Stigma scale, the mean baseline score was 16.6 (SD = 4.5, Range = 10-25). The CF Stigma Scale demonstrated robust psychometric properties: 1) Internal consistency: α = 0.79; 2) Mean inter-item correlation: 0.30 with good test-retest reliability; 3) Convergent validity: Positive associations with depression, severity of CF symptoms and anxiety; negative associations with validated quality of life scores were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Stigma is measurable and significantly impacts the lives of CF patients. Further research should investigate the role of stigma in patients living with CF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".