Family Quality of Life Among Families with a Member Diagnosed with CLD – What to Expect?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a very important outcome in patients with chronic liver disease. Thus, the present study attempts to assess the family quality of life of these patients, since it is well known that families have always represented the primary environment of most people. Matherial and methods. A sample of 30 participants with a family member who had CLD were recruited to be interviewed through the Romanian adaptation of the Family Quality of Life Survey – general version 2006 (FQOLS-2006), an evaluation tool developed in Canada with the purpose of studying families’ quality of life among. Primary caregivers completed the FQOL Survey. The data was analysed to describe population characteristics and to explore the relationship between the main domains and dimensions of QoL and the patients and caregivers characteristics. Results. The findings showed highest domain scores for Support from services and Family relationships and lowest for Support from others. Dimension scores were highest for Importance and lowest for Stability. Overall FQOL approximated average (78.5±13.4). Younger patients scored lower rates of FQOL domains. Alcohol-related liver disease led to lower rates of all the domains, except from Support from others and Leisure and Recreation activities. Patients with liver cirrhosis or liver cancer negatively influence their caregiver’s success in career. Also, families of liver cirrhosis patients reported the lowest level of satisfaction among all respondents. Conclusions. The results of this study suggest that there are some significant areas of family life highly influenced by a chronic liver disease diagnosis in one of their members.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it