Perspectives of Women Living With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study investigated the perceptions of women with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder about their illness in the context of their life stages and corresponding health needs. This paper reports narratively and through direct quotations what the women's daily lives are like. METHODS: Five focus groups totaling 28 women who identified themselves as having schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and who were living in the community met to discuss their health-related needs, ranging from parenting and reproductive health to relationships and getting older. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed inductively, and data were coded and organized around key themes. RESULTS: This group of women led marginalized, deprived lives in the face of multiple losses, social stigma, limited interpersonal contacts, and poverty. Perceived rejection and criticism were commonplace. The women felt that the health care system focused on their illness and that they had become invisible as women. Nevertheless, they conveyed a persistent sense of wanting life to improve and hoping that it could. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of a woman's life can be seriously impaired by illness or its treatment. Health care providers can help improve the lives of women with severe mental illness by focusing on how options and alternatives are presented, by exploring the impact of illness and treatment on a woman's day-to-day life, and by determining the appropriate structure of the therapeutic relationship.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".