The impact of a telephone contact program on physical and psychological functioning : level of pain and perceived social support among elderly females with arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having identified the need to provide services to elderly, homebound people with arthritis, the Social Work Department at the Vancouver Arthritis Centre initiated an Arthritis Telephone Contact Program in Autumn, 1989. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not a weekly telephone call from volunteers would impact positively on subjects' physical and psychological functioning, level of pain and perceived level of social support. The 11 subjects in this study were elderly, Caucasian women identified by health care professionals as being socially isolated due, in part, to the limits placed on them by either osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. The one-group pretest-posttest research design was employed for this study. Quantitative measures used were the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS) and the Perceived Social Support From Friends and From Family Scale (PSS-Fr & Fa). Interviews of subjects were conducted in order to describe the efficacy of the Telephone Contact Program from more than one perspective. Over 16 weeks, paired t-test found that the physical functioning of subjects had improved significantly. It was noted that there was a trend towards improved health status for the experimental group in that seven out of the eight subscales of AIMS measured improvement, while one subscale showed no change. Contrary to prediction, perception of social support from family members decreased significantly, as measured by the PSS-Fa scale. Pearson correlation coefficients found no association between changes in perception of social support and changes in health status. Interview data suggests that callers were perceived as sources of social support. Specifically, callers seemed to provide participants with emotional support, informational support, and positive social interaction. Overall, the data suggested that the Telephone Contact Program had the capability to evoke small, but clinically meaningfully improvements in the health status of elderly women with arthritis. Further investigation into the use of telephone contact programs as a minimal intervention is advised.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".