MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519231063 · doi:10.1002/msc.1159

Patients’ Perspectives on the Psychological Impact of Inflammatory Arthritis and Meeting the Associated Support Needs: Open‐Ended Responses in a Multi‐Centre Survey

2016· article· en· W2519231063 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Emma Dures, Isobel Fraser, Celia Almeida, Alice Peterson, Judy Caesley, Jon Pollock, N. Ambler, Marianne Morris, Sarah Hewlett

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVersus ArthritisArthritis Society
KeywordsMedicineLonelinessCoping (psychology)FeelingSocial supportDistressRheumatologyAnxietyPsychological distressPsychological interventionClinical psychologyFamily medicineInternal medicineNursingPsychiatryPsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Psychological support for inflammatory arthritis is recommended in rheumatology treatment guidelines. Previous research found that high numbers of patients would access such support but that provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. The present study explored patients' perspectives on the nature of the psychological impact of inflammatory arthritis and how to meet the associated support needs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted, using questionnaires which included three open-ended questions about helpful and unhelpful psychological support. The questionnaires were administered to 1,080 patients at six regional rheumatology units across England, and 1,200 members of a national patient charity. RESULTS: A total of 1,210 (53%) patients completed the questionnaire, with 779 (64%) responding to the open-ended questions: 80% female; mean age 59 years (12.6); disease duration <5 years (40%), 5-10 years (20%), >10 years (40%). Data were analysed using a hybrid content analysis. Four categories emerged: challenges of an altered life course (negative emotions, isolation and loneliness, a dysfunctional body, loss, strained relationships, and fears for the future); poor communication (feeling unheard, clinicians' reluctance to address psychological issues, a lack of help to manage pain and fatigue, and struggling to ask for help); understood by others (sharing with people who have arthritis, supportive family and friends, whole team support, and understanding from clinicians); and acquiring strategies (ways of coping). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress was commonplace, and often attributed to fatigue and pain. In addition to peers and family, patients looked to the rheumatology team for validation and support. Further research will address the skills training needs of rheumatology teams to meet patients' psychological support requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusculoskeletal CareSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207