How patients experience progressive loss of visual function: a model of adjustment using qualitative methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) experience functional and psychological challenges as they adjust to progressive loss of visual function. The authors aimed to understand better the process of adjusting to RP in light of the emotional suffering associated with this process. METHODS: Adults with RP were recruited from the Foundation Fighting Blindness and the Wilmer Eye Institute in Baltimore. Focus groups and semistructured interviews addressed the process of adjusting to RP and were audiotaped and transcribed. The transcripts were analysed qualitatively in order to generate a model of adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 43 individuals participated. It was found that, on diagnosis, people with RP seek to understand its meaning in their lives. Mastering the progressive functional implications associated with RP is contingent upon shifting personal identity from a sighted to a visually impaired person. In this sample, six participants self identified as sighted, 10 self identified as in transition, and 27 self identified as visually impaired. This adjustment process can be understood in terms of a five stage model of behaviour change. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model presents one way to understand the process of adjusting to RP and could assist ophthalmologists in meeting their moral obligation to lessen patients' suffering, which arises in the course of their adjustment to progressive loss of visual function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".