The Use of Demoralization Scale in Italian Kidney Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demoralization is a commonly observed syndrome in medically ill patients. The risk of demoralization may increase in patients after a kidney transplant (KTRs) because of the stressful nature of renal transplantation, psychosocial challenges, and adjustment needs. No study is available on demoralization amongst KTRs. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the validity of the Italian version of the Demoralization Scale (DS-IT) and the prevalence of demoralization in KTRs. Also, we aimed at exploring the association of the DS-IT with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) psychiatric diagnoses, post-traumatic growth (PTG), psychological and physical symptoms, and daily-life problems. A total of 134 KTRs were administered the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview 6.0. and the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research–Demoralization (DCPR/D) Interview. The DS-IT, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), the Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC), were used to measure demoralization, physical and psychological symptoms, and daily-life problems; also, positive psychological experience of kidney transplantation was assessed with the PTG Inventory. Routine biochemistry and sociodemographic data were collected. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a four-dimensional factor structure of the DS-IT, explaining 55% of the variance (loss of meaning and purpose, disheartenment, dysphoria, and sense of failure). DS-IT Cronbach alpha coefficients indicated good or acceptable level of internal consistency. The area under the Receiving Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve for DS-IT (against the DCPR/D interview as a gold standard) was 0.92. The DS-IT optimal cut-off points were ≥20 (sensitivity 0.87, specificity 0.82). By examining the level of demoralization, 14.2%, 46.3%, 24.6%, and 14.6% of our sample were classified as having no, low, moderate, and high demoralization, respectively, with differences according to the ICD psychiatric diagnoses (p < 0.001). DS-IT Total and subscales scores were positively correlated with scores of ESAS symptoms and CPC score. A correlation between DS-IT loss of meaning and purpose subscale and PTGI appreciation of life subscale (p < 0.05) was found. This study shows, for the first time, a satisfactory level of reliability of the DS-IT and a high prevalence of severe demoralization in KTRs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".