Association of coping strategies with mortality and health-related quality of life in hemodialysis patients: The Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are exposed to disease- and treatment-related stresses, and use various coping strategies to deal with these stresses. Although some studies have reported the association of coping strategies with mortality or health-related quality of life (QOL) in some populations, the effect of coping strategies on clinical outcomes in hemodialysis patients remains unclear. We investigated the association in a longitudinal design among Japanese hemodialysis patients. METHODS: We examined Japanese hemodialysis patients who participated in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) IV, which was conducted between 2009 and 2012. The exposure variable was stress coping strategy, as assessed using subscales in Coping Strategies Inventory Short Form: problem-focused engagement, problem-focused disengagement, emotion-focused engagement, and emotion-focused disengagement. Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model for all-cause mortality and mean differences for change in health-related QOL in 1 year were estimated using a regression model. RESULTS: Among 1,354 patients, only problem-focused engagement was significantly associated with longer survival; other subscales were not associated with all-cause mortality after adjustment for potential confounding factors. In terms of health-related QOL, the subscale of problem-focused engagement was also associated with improvement in physical functioning and mental health among 1,045 patients. Emotion-focused disengagement was associated with deterioration in mental health, but not with change in physical functioning. The other subscales were not associated with change in physical functioning or mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Among hemodialysis patients, "problem-focused engagement" coping strategies were associated with longer survival and also with improvement in physical functioning and mental health. To achieve greater longevity and improve QOL in hemodialysis patients under ongoing stresses, problem-focused engagement should be encouraged.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".