MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2644701691 · doi:10.1177/1049732317711901

Evolving Motivations: Patients’ and Caregivers’ Perceptions About Seeking Myotonic Dystrophy (DM1) and Huntington’s Disease Care

2017· article· en· W2644701691 on OpenAlexaff
Kori A. LaDonna, Christopher Watling, Susan L. Ray, Christine Piechowicz, Shannon L. Venance

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryMyotonic dystrophyMedicineDiseasePerceptionHealth careQualitative researchPsychologyHuntington's diseaseNursingFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient-centered care provision is challenging under ideal circumstances; myotonic dystrophy (DM1) and Huntington's disease (HD) are examples of chronic, progressive health conditions that may challenge its limits. If we can understand how care unfolds in these conditions, health care providers may be better equipped to address patients' needs. Constructivist grounded theory informed data collection and analysis. Fourteen patients with DM1 or HD, and 10 caregivers participated in semistructured interviews. Constant comparative analysis was used to identify themes. Participants attended clinic to seek expert information and social support. Medical management, altruism, and support provided the motivation. However, motivations evolved, with clinic becoming more important for caregivers as patients deteriorated. Clinic was conceptualized as a "safe space" to actively participate in health care and research. In the absence of disease-halting or curative treatments, participants perceived that they derived a therapeutic benefit from seeking care and from engaging in education and advocacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207