Patient concerns regarding chronic hepatitis C infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counselling of patients with chronic hepatitis C infections is often limited to discussions regarding how the virus is transmitted and what can be done to decrease the risk of transmission to others. The purpose of the present study was to document the principal concerns of newly diagnosed and follow-up patients with chronic hepatitis C, and thereby enhance counselling strategies and content. Seventy newly diagnosed and 115 follow-up patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection were initially asked in an open-ended manner (volunteered concerns) and then to prioritize from a prepared list of seven potential concerns (prioritized concerns), to identify those concerns that were of utmost importance to them. The most common volunteered concerns of newly diagnosed patients in decreasing order were: disease progression (27%), premature death (19%), infecting family members (13%), side-effects of treatment (11%) and miscellaneous others. In decreasing order, prioritized concerns included: infecting family members, development of liver cancer, infecting others, development of cirrhosis, social stigma of having liver disease, need for liver transplant and loss of employment. The principal volunteered and prioritized concerns of follow-up patients were similar to those of newly diagnosed patients. Volunteered and prioritized concerns were relatively consistent across the different genders, age groups, ethnic backgrounds, education level, marital status, employment, modes of viral acquisition and in the case of follow-up patients, duration of follow-up. These results indicate that health care providers who focus counselling efforts exclusively on viral transmission are unlikely to address other important concerns of newly diagnosed and follow-up patients with chronic HCV infection.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".