Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life Perspectives, Self-Esteem, and Life Satisfactions of Older Adults Following Spousal Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The overall purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between widowed persons' baseline assessments of self-efficacy beliefs and their ratings of perceived health-related quality of life, life satisfactions, and self-esteem obtained in an 18-month follow-up. DESIGN AND METHOD: At Time 1, a survey of sociodemographics, a multidimensional measure of global self-efficacy, and a domain-specific measure of self-efficacy, having eight subscales of self-efficacy (interpersonal, instrumental, emotional, social support, nutritional, physical, financial, and spiritual) were administered to a group of 231 widows and widowers to obtain baseline assessments of their self-efficacy beliefs. At Time 2, a follow-up of 211 widows and widowers was conducted to obtain their perceptions of health-related quality of life, life satisfactions, and levels of self-esteem 24 months following spousal loss and to assess whether self-efficacy beliefs play a predictive role in widowed individuals' perceptions of their health-related quality of life, life satisfactions, and self-esteem. RESULTS: A series of gender-specific multiple regression analyses models revealed that widows and widowers differ significantly with respect to the relationship between specific domains of self-efficacy and their perceived quality of life in the longer term following spousal loss. IMPLICATIONS: Implications of the findings are discussed for clinicians and health professionals working with bereaved spouses in terms of intervention programs for retraining of self-efficacy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".