Patient-physician discordance in fibromyalgia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Discordance between patients' and physicians' health perceptions and satisfaction with the office visit in fibromyalgia (FM) has not been examined. We investigated this phenomenon to identify demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with patient-physician discordance on physical functioning, well being, and satisfaction with the office visit. METHODS: A sample of 182 women were examined by a rheumatologist to confirm the FM diagnosis. Patients and physicians independently completed the Patient-Physician Discordance Scale to assess perceptions of health and satisfaction with the office visit. Patients also completed questionnaires pertaining to sociodemographics, social support, disability, perceived stress, and psychological distress following the office visit. Separate generalized estimating equations with forward selection, controlling for the possible dependence of outcomes among patients of same physician, were modeled for each measure of discordance. RESULTS: The highest discordance score was on satisfaction with the office visit; physicians systematically underestimated patients' level of satisfaction. Higher levels of satisfaction with social support (p < 0.02) and more psychological distress (p < 0.03) were marginally associated with greater discordance on physical functioning. Higher levels of satisfaction with social support (p < 0.003), younger age (p < 0.02), and lower disability (p < 0.03) were associated with greater discordance on well being. More sexual abuse (p < 0.01) was significantly associated with more discordance on satisfaction with the office visit. CONCLUSION: There is a gap between what patients with FM and rheumatologists examining them experience during the office visit. Psychosocial factors contribute to our understanding of discordance on physical functioning, well being, and satisfaction.
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 | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".