Social Role Participation in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Cross‐Sectional Comparison With Population Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Participation in social roles for persons with chronic disease is important for their quality of life, but interpretation of the data on participation is difficult in the absence of a benchmark. This study aimed to compare social role participation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to population controls using the Social Role Participation Questionnaire (SRPQ). METHODS: There were 246 AS patients and 510 population controls who completed the SRPQ, which assesses participation in 11 roles (with scores ranging 1-5) across 4 dimensions (importance, satisfaction with performance, satisfaction with time, and physical difficulty), and additionally ranked their 3 most important roles. The ranking of role importance, the SRPQ dimension scores, and the gap between importance and satisfaction with performance of roles were compared between patients and controls. RESULTS: Patients (62% male; mean ± SD age 51 ± 12 years) and controls (70% male; mean ± SD 42 ± 15 years) ranked intimate relationships, relationships with children/stepchildren/grandchildren, and employment as the most important roles. Compared to controls, patients gave higher scores on the SRPQ to importance (3.75 versus 3.43), but reported lower satisfaction with performance (3.19 versus 3.58) and greater physical difficulty (3.87 versus 4.67) (P ≤ 0.05 for all). The largest differences in gaps between importance and satisfaction with performance for patients compared to controls were seen in the physical leisure, hobbies, and traveling and vacation categories, in which patients assigned higher importance but reported especially low satisfaction. CONCLUSION: As society places increasing emphasis on individual responsibility to participate fully in social roles, the current data suggest that health care providers should pay more attention to participation restrictions experienced by patients with AS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".