Reasons for attending support groups and organizational preferences: the European scleroderma support group members survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives were to identify reasons why patients attend scleroderma support groups and to ascertain preferences for how meetings are best organized. METHODS: The survey included 30-items on reasons for attending and nine items on organizational preferences. Patients were recruited through European patient organizations. Exploratory factor analysis was used to group reasons for attendance thematically. RESULTS: (348) = 586.1, p < 0.001; Comparative Fit Index = 0.98; Tucker Lewis Index = 0.97; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.06] with themes that included: (1) obtaining interpersonal and social support, (2) learning about treatment and symptom management strategies, and (3) discussing other aspects of scleroderma. Among organizational preferences, respondents emphasized that meetings should include educational aspects and the opportunity to share information and support. CONCLUSION: People with scleroderma attend support groups to give and obtain social support and for education about managing their disease and other aspects of living with scleroderma. Support groups should be structured to facilitate both educational and informational aspects and to provide opportunities for sharing and support between members. Implications for rehabilitation Local peer-led support groups are an important support and informational resource for patients living with scleroderma. People with scleroderma attend support groups in order to: (1) obtain interpersonal and social support, (2) learn about disease treatment and symptom management strategies, and (3) discuss other aspects of living with scleroderma outside of symptom management. Most support group members prefer groups with a trained facilitator, that include family members or loved ones in the groups, that include between 11and 20 members, that last between 1 and 2 h, and that meet once every 1-3 months. Rehabilitation professionals can support the formation and management of local support groups or can refer patients to national scleroderma patient organizations for information on support groups that they may be able to access.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".