MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165587025 · doi:10.1177/1524839904266790

A Review and Synthesis of Research Evidence for Self-Efficacy-Enhancing Interventions for Reducing Chronic Disability: Implications for Health Education Practice (Part I)

2004· review· en· W2165587025 on OpenAlexaff
Ray Marks, John P. Allegrante, Kate Lorig

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteOsteoporosis Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineSelf-managementCoping (psychology)Quality of life (healthcare)DiseaseAlternative medicinePublic healthSelf-efficacyGerontologyPhysical therapyNursingPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic diseases such as arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease that cause pain, functional impairment, social and emotional dysfunction, and premature loss of wage earnings constitute a challenging problem for American society. In the absence of any effective cure for these frequently progressive conditions, the secondary prevention of complications, which requires a high degree of communication and cooperation between patient and clinician, and improving quality of life and functional capacity through better disease self-management becomes critical and are key objectives of Healthy People 2010. Part I of this two-part article described the common clinical features of chronic disease, the diverse disease management strategies used for alleviating pain and preventing disability, and the role of self-efficacy as a framework for intervention. This companion article identifies and synthesizes the key research evidence for educational interventions designed to enhance individual self-efficacy perceptions and presents implications for improving practices in patient education for chronic diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.448
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations737
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PracticeSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207