Resilience and health-related quality of life in patients with pulmonary diseases receiving ambulatory oxygen therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary diseases affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but there are few data on patients' adaptation to a serious illness. This study assessed resilience and its associations with HRQoL, life satisfaction, anxiety and depression in patients with pulmonary diseases receiving ambulatory oxygen therapy. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we enrolled 42 patients with pulmonary diseases receiving ambulatory oxygen therapy. The patients completed the following questionnaires at baseline and after one and three months; the Resilience Scale-25, the Life Satisfaction Scale-4, the 15D instrument of HRQoL, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0). To compare HRQoL, we recruited age- and gender-matched controls from the general population (n = 3574). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with low resilience. RESULTS: Half (42-48%) of the patients had low resilience, which was correlated with low HRQoL, low levels of life satisfaction and higher levels of anxiety and depression. Patients had very low HRQoL compared to controls. Dissatisfaction with life increased during the 3-months follow-up, but only a few patients had anxiety or depression. Patient satisfaction with assistive technology was high; the median QUEST 2.0 score (scale 1-5) was 4.00 at baseline, 3.92 at one month and 3.88 at three months. CONCLUSIONS: Resilience was low in half of the patients with pulmonary diseases receiving ambulatory oxygen therapy. Higher resilience was positively correlated with HRQoL and life satisfaction and negatively correlated with anxiety and depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Record 507A023. Registered 17 September 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04554225&cntry=&state=&city=&dist= .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".