Physical Function Assessment of a Mayan Population Living With Osteoarthritis: The Importance of Considering Different Aspects of Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the physical function of people living with osteoarthritis in a Maya-Yucateco rural community from 3 perspectives and explore factors associated with the presence of disability. Design: Physical function and social, physical, psychological, and behavioral factors were evaluated in all adults detected with hand, hip, and/or knee osteoarthritis (n = 144) through a Community-Oriented Program for the Control of Rheumatic Diseases–based census in the Mayan community of Chankom, Yucatán. All cases fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria. Physical function was assessed from 3 perspectives: hypothetical or “what people think they can do” (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), experimental or “what people could do in standardized conditions” (6-minute walk test [6MWT] + the Functional Dexterity Test) and enacted or “what people actually do” (personal care, work, and leisure activities’ self-report). Results: About 80% of participants reported “mild” disability (HAQ-DI ≤ 1) in the hypothetical function perspective, whereas average experimental function scores were low (6MWT: 206 m, Functional Dexterity Test: 64 seconds), and 78% of participants reported problems with enacted function (ie, work). Pain was significantly associated with disability in the hypothetical perspective (odds ratio [OR] = 3 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-4]); levels of wealth (β = 5 [95% CI: 1-9]) and muscle strength (β = 54 [95% CI: 20-87]) were significantly associated with functioning in the experimental perspective; and lower levels of self-efficacy (OR = 12 [95% CI: 6-27]) and physical activity (OR = 12 [95% CI: 6-27]) were significantly associated with work disability in the enacted function perspective. Conclusions: People living with osteoarthritis in Chankom show important issues when assessing physical function at the experimental and enacted perspectives, which could have been overlooked if only the hypothetical perspective was considered. Different factors were associated with different physical function perspectives and all should be addressed to decrease disability in this community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".