A coping skills group and peer telephone support had similar effects on role performance, adaptability, and wellbeing in patients with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schwartz CE. Teaching coping skills enhances quality of life more than peer support: results of a randomized trial with multiple sclerosis patients. Health Psychology1999 May; 18 : 211 –20 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: For patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), is a coping skills group intervention more effective than telephone peer support for improving or maintaining long term psychosocial role performance, adaptability, and wellbeing? Randomised {allocation not concealed}*, unblinded, controlled trial with 2 years of follow up. Boston, Massachusetts, USA Patients were recruited from an MS clinic, newspapers, newsletters, and referrals. Inclusion criteria were neurologist confirmed diagnosis of MS and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score 1–8.5 (minimal neurological problems to requirement of a wheelchair). 136 patients were randomised and 132 patients (mean age 43 y, 74% women, mean duration of MS 8 y, 42% with progressive MS, mean income US$45 000) … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DHealth%2Bpsychology%2B%253A%2B%2Bofficial%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BDivision%2Bof%2BHealth%2BPsychology%252C%2BAmerican%2BPsychological%2BAssociation%26rft.stitle%253DHealth%2BPsychol%26rft.aulast%253DSchwartz%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%2BE.%26rft.volume%253D18%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D211%26rft.epage%253D220%26rft.atitle%253DTeaching%2Bcoping%2Bskills%2Benhances%2Bquality%2Bof%2Blife%2Bmore%2Bthan%2Bpeer%2Bsupport%253A%2Bresults%2Bof%2Ba%2Brandomized%2Btrial%2Bwith%2Bmultiple%2Bsclerosis%2Bpatients.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1037%252F0278-6133.18.3.211%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10357502%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0278-6133.18.3.211&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10357502&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F3%2F1%2F20.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000080418700001&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".