Illness Perception of Patients with Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the illness perception characteristics of Chinese patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID), and the mediating role between symptoms, psychopathology and clinical outcomes. Methods: Six illness groups from four outpatient departments of a general hospital in China were recruited, including the FGID patient group. The modified and validated Chinese version of the illness perception questionnaire-revised was utilized, which contained three sections: symptom identity, illness representation and causes. The 12-item short-form health survey was utilized to reflect the physical and mental health related quality of life (HRQoL). The Toronto alexithymia scale was used to measure the severity of alexithymia. Additional behavioral outcome about the frequency of doctor visits in the past 12 months was measured. Pathway analyses with multiple-group comparisons were conducted to test the mediating role of illness perception. Results: Overall, 600 patients were recruited. The illness perceptions of FGID patients were characterized as with broad non-gastrointestinal symptoms (6.8±4.2), a negative illness representation (more chronic course, worse consequences, lower personal and treatment control, lower illness coherence, and heavier emotional distress), and high numbers of psychological and culture-specific attributions. Fit indices of the three hypothesized path models (for physical and mental HRQoL and doctor-visit frequency, respectively) supported the mediating role of illness perceptions. For example, the severity of alexithymia and non-gastrointestinal symptoms had significant negative effect on mental quality of life through both direct (standardized effect: -.085 and -.233) and indirect (standardized effect: -.045 and -.231) influence via subscales of consequences, emotional representation, and psychological and risk factor attributions. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis showed similar psychometric properties for FGID patients and the other disease group. Conclusions: The management of FGID patients should take into consideration dysfunctional illness perceptions, non-gastrointestinal symptoms and emotion regulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".