Coping in African Americans With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the chronic nature of inflammatory bowel disease, understanding the coping behaviors of individuals affected with the disease is important to influence health outcomes. Although minorities comprise a significant portion of individuals with the disease, little is known about the potential influence of one's culture, specifically among African Americans, on coping with inflammatory bowel disease. This integrative literature review examined the past decade of research related to the coping behaviors of African Americans living with inflammatory bowel disease to identify opportunities for further research. Five studies were identified via database searches of PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library and limited to studies published in English, full-text, peer-reviewed, and adult samples that included African Americans. Findings lacked information specific to coping in African Americans. Results were categorized by coping and disease activity, acquisition of knowledge, and personal coping. An association between poor coping behaviors and active disease was reported. The disease frequently hindered academic pursuits of college students, with increased knowledge about the disease associated with the use of better coping strategies. Personal coping behaviors were reported in stressful social situations, food choices, and religion. Results emphasized the need for future research to explore the influence of culture on the coping behaviors of African Americans with inflammatory bowel disease.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".