The Effect of Medication-related Support on the Quality of Life of Patients with Vasculitis in Relapse and Remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated whether the utility of social support for patients with a relapsing, remitting illness varies by activity level of the disease. Our goal was to determine whether disease status (relapse vs remission) moderates the effect of medication-related support from physicians and partners on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with vasculitis. METHODS: Patients with vasculitis (n = 228) completed baseline measures of disease status and medication-related support and a 3-month followup measure of HRQOL (RAND 36-item health survey 1.0). We calculated 8 HRQOL dimensions: physical functioning, physical role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role limitations, and mental health. Bonferroni-corrected t tests compared the HRQOL of patients in relapse to patients in remission, and multivariate analysis of covariance determined whether disease status moderated the effect of medication-related support from physicians and partners on patient HRQOL. Wilks' lambda assessed whether the support-by-disease status interaction terms were significant. RESULTS: Relapsing patients reported significantly worse quality of life compared with nonrelapsing patients for every HRQOL dimension except physical role limitations. Disease status did not moderate the effect of physician (lambda = 0.48; p = 0.86) or partner (lambda = 1.51; p = 0.16) medication-related support on HRQOL, although greater physician and partner support predicted better HRQOL for all dimensions except bodily pain and vitality. CONCLUSION: Vasculitis patients experience compromised HRQOL but the magnitude of the compromise is greater for patients experiencing a relapse. Medication-related support from physicians and partners is beneficial for patients' HRQOL regardless of disease status.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".