What Do Psychiatric Patients Believe Regarding Where Control Over Their Illness Lies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients' perceived control constructs are important factors moderating health-related behaviors. We established the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Form C Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (C-MHLC) and assessed the usefulness of these measures in the clinical setting. A cross-sectional survey querying about patients' health locus of control (HLOC) beliefs was offered to 607 psychiatric outpatients, of whom 507 accepted. The C-MHLC scale and the General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale were completed. The psychiatric patients believe that their psychiatrist plays a crucial role in improving their state of health. The men scored higher than the women in internal dimension; the women scored higher in other people external dimension. Age, treatment time, and number of psychoactive drugs used showed significant differences in HLOC dimensions. Self-efficacy correlated positively with internal dimension and negatively with external dimensions. The results showed the validity of the four-factor structure of the Spanish version of the C-MHLC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".