Exploring the psychological morbidity of waiting for sinus surgery using a mixed methods approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) often have to endure significant wait times for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The pyschiatric impact of placement on a waitlist for ESS has not been explored. METHODS: Questionnaires measuring CRS symptom severity and health-related anxiety and stress (SNOT-22, HADS, WPAI-GH) were sent to patients diagnosed with CRS and currently on a waitlist for ESS. Fifteen representative waitlisted patients participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews discussing their experience with their wait for ESS. A deductive thematic analysis was used to interpret the interview data using a quantitative driven mixed methods analysis. RESULTS: Participants waiting for ESS reported worsening clinical symptomatology during their waiting period. Participants reported waitlist and CRS impact on both work and social aspects of their lives. The HADS scale showed no overall significant level of depression or anxiety in the HADS screening questionnaire. The qualitative data describe the effects of the symptom burden of CRS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients waitlisted for ESS did not demonstrate any significant level of psychiatric distress, however variability exists. The qualitative arm of this study elucidates how patients cope with their wait.
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 | 0.034 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".