MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3024162681 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.191353

Do Illness Perceptions and Coping Strategies Change Over Time in Patients Recently Diagnosed With Axial Spondyloarthritis?

2020· article· en· W3024162681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. van Lunteren, Robert Landewé, Camilla Fongen, Roberta Ramonda, Désirée van der Heijde, F. van Gaalen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisPhysical therapyRating scaleCoping (psychology)Severity of illnessCohortQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicinePsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective It is unknown if in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients’ illness perceptions and coping strategies change when disease activity changes. Methods Patients diagnosed with axSpA and with 1 or more follow-up visits (1 and/or 2 yrs in the SPACE cohort) were included. Mixed linear models were used for illness perceptions (range 1–5), coping (range 1–4), back pain (numeric rating scale range 0–10), health-related quality of life (range 0–100), physical and mental component summary (PCS and MCS; range 0–100), work productivity loss (WPL; range 0–100), and activity impairment (AI; range 0–100%), separately, to test if they changed over time. Results At baseline, 150 axSpA patients (mean age 30.4 yrs, 51% female, 65% HLA-B27+) had a mean (SD) numeric rating scale back pain of 4.0 (2.5), PCS of 28.8 (14.0), MCS of 47.8 (12.4), WPL of 34.1% (29.8), and AI of 38.7% (27.9). Over 2 years, clinically and statistically significant improvements were seen in the proportion of patients with an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of low disease activity (from 39% at baseline to 68% at 2 years), back pain (−1.5, SD 2.2), AI (−14.4%, SD 27.2), PCS (11.1, SD 13.3), and WPL (−15.3%, SD 28.7), but MCS did not change (0.7, SD 13.9; P = 0.201). In contrast, illness perceptions and coping strategies did not change over a period of 2 years. For example, at 2 years patients believed that their illness had severe “consequences” (2.8, SD 0.9) and they had negative emotions (e.g., feeling upset or fear) towards their illness [“emotional representation”, 2.5 (0.8)]. Patients most often coped with their pain by putting pain into perspective [“comforting cognitions”, 2.8 (0.6)] and tended to cope with limitations by being optimistic [“optimism”, 2.9 (0.7)]. Conclusion While back pain, disease activity, and health outcomes clearly improved over 2 years, illness perceptions and coping strategies remained remarkably stable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→