Psoriasis Patients' Reflections on Provider Information Giving: Perceptions of Actual and Desired Experiences at Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Psoriasis adversely impacts patients' quality of life, yet few studies have explored patients' experiences at diagnosis, a pivotal though largely negative time for any patient suffering from chronic disease. Objective Our objective was to identify potential shortcomings in the content and process of information delivery from the patient's perspective. Methods Twenty-three psoriasis patients completed an online survey regarding information they considered valuable at diagnosis and, in retrospect, content they would like to have received. Results Responses were subjected to a qualitative content analysis that revealed several themes: need for information and options, discussion of time and effort to find the right treatment, for providers to offer hope, and discussion of the psychosocial impact of psoriasis. Conclusions Many patients perceived negative actual experiences at diagnosis that were incongruent with their desired experiences. Psoriasis patients wanted information about disease and management, acknowledgement of psychosocial impact, and an empathetic mode of communication.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".