Strategie di coping nella schizofrenia: studio delle variabili cliniche e funzionali come determinanti delle modalità di adattamento allo stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to analyze the relation between coping styles, and both clinical and functional variables in a sample of patients with stable schizophrenia. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive outpatients were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. A clinical assessment was performed and included: the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), the Scale for the Assessment of Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), the Quality of Life Scale (QLS) and the questionnaire Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36). Coping strategies were assessed with the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS), identifying three main coping styles: task-, emotion- and avoidance-oriented. Three different multiple regression models with backward elimination were performed in order to discover contributing factors to coping styles. RESULTS: From the results of multiple regression, depressive symptoms and objective quality of life were contributing factors to task-oriented coping style, explaining about 32% of variance. Negative symptoms, subjective quality of life, self-esteem, awareness of symptomatology and attribution of symptoms to illness resulted to be contributing factors to emotion-oriented coping strategies, explaining about 60% of variance. DISCUSSION: These results suggested the role of some clinical and functional variables as contributing factors to coping styles. In this context, supportive and rehabilitative interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy focused to manage psychotic symptoms and to decrease distress could help patients to employ more adaptive coping strategies and improve their outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".