Which Aspects of Functioning Are Relevant for Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: Results of Focus Group Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether concepts important to patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are covered by disease-specific self-report health status instruments. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study was conducted with AS patients on problems in daily functioning. Group sessions with 4 to 5 patients each were organized up to the point that no new information was brought forward. Group sessions were tape-recorded, transcribed, and divided into meaning units. Concepts contained in the meaning units were extracted. Self-report instruments on health status specific for AS were identified in a literature search. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a common reference, it was determined whether the concepts identified in the focus groups were covered by the instruments. RESULTS: Nineteen patients participated in 4 focus group interviews. In total, 332 unique meaning units were linked to 90 second-level ICF categories, of which 25 referred to body functions, 10 to body structures, 35 to activities and participation and 30 to environmental factors. In addition, several concepts relating to personal factors were identified. Only 47 categories were also covered by one of the self-report instruments in AS. Only a minority of concepts addressed by the AS-specific questionnaires were not revealed as relevant in the interviews. CONCLUSION: Relevant aspects of the influence of AS are not covered by the classic disease-specific instruments. In particular, the influence of AS on socializing and leisure and the relevance of environmental and personal factors are not adequately assessed by available instruments.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".