Self-management and family support in chronic diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : The p ur pose was to evaluate the behavior of self-management in people with: diabetes, hypertension and cancer, and to analyze the relationship between self-management and family support. Methods : This study has cross-sectional and correlational design. A convenience sample was used. The study was conducted at the Sanitary District Number 2 of Tampico, Tamaulipas, México. The sample consisted of 299 patients, the scale of self-management in chronic illness: “Partners in Health Scale”. The Kruskal-Wallis test, the Spearman and Kendall-Tau correlation were used for the analysis. Results and Conclusions : The people of the study showed poor self-management. The statistical significance was found in the adherence dimension, being this difference in the group which was diagnosed with cancer, vs the diabetes and hypertension groups. The results of the family APGAR showed that 25% of the participants had moderate and severe family dysfunction; the results also show that this family support is not the only factor to consider in this behavior, although the statistical results were significant, yet this relationship is medium or low.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".