Religious coping and its influence on psychological distress, medication adherence, and quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with elevated levels of anxiety and depression and a reduction in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Nonadherence to treatment is also frequent in IBD and compromises outcomes. Religious coping plays a role in the adaptation to several chronic diseases. However, the influence of religious coping on IBD-related psychological distress, HRQoL, and treatment adherence remains unknown. METHOD: This cross-sectional study recruited 147 consecutive patients with either Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. Sociodemographic data, disease-related variables, psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), religious coping (Brief RCOPE Scale), HRQoL (WHOQOL-Bref), and adherence (8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale) were assessed. Hierarchical multiple regression models were used to evaluate the effects of religious coping on IBD-related psychological distress, treatment adherence, and HRQoL. RESULTS: Positive RCOPE was negatively associated with anxiety (b = 0.256; p = 0.007) as well as with overall, physical, and mental health HRQoL. Religious struggle was significantly associated with depression (b = 0.307; p < 0.001) and self-reported adherence (b = 0.258; p = 0.009). Finally, anxiety symptoms fully mediated the effect of positive religious coping on overall HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Religious coping is significantly associated with psychological distress, HRQoL, and adherence in IBD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".