Psychological functioning, coping styles and their relationship to appraisal of physical limitations following invasive surgical procedures for soft‐tissue sarcoma: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study explored psychological functioning and coping styles in adult patients with soft-tissue sarcoma who underwent surgical procedures in a single expert sarcoma medical center in Canada. METHODS: This is a qualitative study with three formats of data collection. The interview guide was based on theoretical health-related quality of life model. We began the investigation with 2 online and 2 in-person focus groups. Four individual semistructured interviews were added to further explore emerging themes. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic networks approach. RESULTS: Twenty-eight adults (13 female, 24-75 years of age) participated. In the domain of psychological functioning we identified three main themes; changes in mood, worry, and body image concerns. In the domain of coping styles, we identified four adaptive coping styles; positive reframing and optimism, finding a purpose, being proactive, and using humor. Among the maladaptive coping styles, we found passive acceptance, and avoidance and denial. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological well-being can be contingent on physical functioning and coping styles in adults with soft-tissue sarcoma. Both psychological and physical function impact quality of life. Patients with more physical limitations, psychological distress and maladaptive coping styles should be monitored for their well-being.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".