A qualitative synthesis of theories on psychosocial response to loss of breasts, limbs or teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review is to generate a qualitative synthesis of psychosocial theories being used to explain the beliefs and behaviors of people responding to loss of anatomical parts, such as breasts, limbs, or teeth. DATA & SOURCES: A search in four databases and subsequent manual search of pertinent reference lists identified theories on how people respond to loss of anatomical parts. Findings were analyzed by consensus through a three-stage interpretive process to: deconstruct and interpret each theory, categorize similar theoretical constructs, and distill the dominant theoretical perspectives identified as most relevant to explaining responses to the loss. STUDY SELECTION: 2540 citations produced 288 articles referring to 89 primary theories containing 586 constructs. Through synthesis of seven construct categories a metatheory with essential contributions from theories on communications, developmental regulation, emotions, resources, and social cognition can explain responses to loss. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative synthesis provides a conceptual foundation for further investigations to explain how people manage loss of anatomical parts. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The combination of five dominant theories serves as a prelude to the development of a metatheory, which will further help determine how people psychosocially respond to the loss of anatomical parts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".