Alcohol-dependent patients' social support and its relation with alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the current social support of alcohol-dependent patients and its relation with alexithymia so as to provide the basis for nursing intervention.Methods 56 male patients with alcohol dependence were investigated with Social Support Scale and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) to analyze the relation between social support and alexithymia. A control group (normal people) was made to compare the difference between them.Results Alcohol-dependent patients' subjective and objective support score[(10.61±4.376),(22.11±4.030)], support utilization rate(6.93±2.319) and total scores (39.68±8.714)were lower than those of the control group (t=-5.730,-2.379,-3.488,-5.181;P<0.05). Patients' age and alexithymia factor Ⅰ, Ⅱ is negatively correlated with subjective support (r=-0.269,P<0.05). Drinking history (r=-0.349,-0.371,-0.348;P<0.01),factor Ⅰ,factor Ⅱ (r=-0.301,-0.285;P<0.05) and factor Ⅲ (r=-0.357,-0.272;P<0.05).is negatively correlated with subjective support, objective support and support utilization rate.Conclusions Social support and alexithymia apparently interact with each other, nurses shall guide patients to correctly identify and feel their experience, effectively disclose their inner expectations and make their social support system consummate. Key words: Social support; Nursing; Alcohol dependence; Alexithymia
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".