Exploring quality of life, physical and psychosocial morbidity for patients with non-infected wounds: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on the results of a pilot study exploring health-related quality of life and the experience of being resilient in patients who develop acute, non-infected surgical wounds. By investigating this under-researched area of wound management, the project team intended to highlight the aspects of patient empowerment in healing post-surgery, encompassing the physical, social and psychological domains. Participants were recruited from patients who had undergone a surgical procedure resulting in an acute non-infected healing wound, and who met the inclusion criteria of the study. Patients were excluded if they had a chronic wound in addition to their acute surgical wound. Valid scores on the physical health (PCS) and mental health (MCS) domains of the SF-12 could only be obtained from six patients pre-operatively. A further six patients completed the SF12 instrument pre-operatively (five valid sets of scores obtained); these patients did not complete the HADS scale. Paired samples t-tests conducted on patients from whom both pre- and postoperative scores were obtained found no significant difference between pre-operative and postoperative PCS scores (p=0.468) or MCS scores (0.806); or between pre-operative and postoperative scores on the anxiety subscale on the HADS scale (p=0.951) or the depression subscale (p=0.951). However, as a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect significant differences. Higher levels of anxiety were revealed in this pilot study than in the wider population. No differences were observed between pre-operative and postoperative scores for physical and mental wellbeing. The findings, while from a small sample set, indicate anxiety is experienced by people living with a wound, and needs to be a consideration in care management plans to enhance adaptation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".