Challenges of self-management when living with multiple chronic conditions: systematic review of the qualitative literature.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of patients who live with multiple chronic conditions as they relate to the challenges of self-management. DATA SOURCES: On September 30, 2013, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using relevant key words including chronic disease, comorbidity, multimorbidity, multiple chronic conditions, self-care, self-management, perspective, and perception. STUDY SELECTION: Three reviewers assessed and extracted the data from the included studies after study quality was rated. Qualitative thematic synthesis method was then used to identify common themes. Twenty-three articles met the inclusion criteria, with most coming from the United States. SYNTHESIS: Important themes raised by people living with multiple chronic conditions related to their ability to self-manage included living with undesirable physical and emotional symptoms, with pain and depression highlighted. Issues with conflicting knowledge, access to care, and communication with health care providers were raised. The use of cognitive strategies, including reframing, prioritizing, and changing beliefs, was reported to improve people's ability to self-manage their multiple chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: This study provides a unique view into patients' perspectives of living with multiple chronic conditions, which are clearly linked to common functional challenges as opposed to specific diseases. Future policy and programming in self-management support should be better aligned with patients' perspectives on living with multiple chronic conditions. This might be achieved by ensuring a more patient-centred approach is adopted by providers and health service organizations.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it