Partners of female patients with rheumatoid arthritis and reproductive decision-making: a constructivist grounded theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Partners of patients with RA often take on supportive roles given the debilitating nature of RA. Our objective was to explore the perspectives, attitudes and experiences of partners of female patients with RA regarding reproductive experiences and decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with partners of female patients with RA. We defined a partner as an individual within a romantic relationship. Constructivist grounded theory was applied to interview transcripts to identify and conceptualize themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 partners of female patients with RA (10 males; mean age, 35 [23-56] years), of whom 40% had at least one child with a female patient with RA and did not desire additional children. We identified four themes representing stages of reproductive decision-making: (1) developing an understanding of RA, (2) contemplating future family decision-making, (3) initiating reproductive decision-making with partner, and (4) reflecting on past reproductive experiences. Participants contemplated their attitudes and perspectives regarding pregnancy and used available information to support their partner's medication decisions. When reflecting on their reproductive experiences, participants shared the impacts of past reproductive decisions on their romantic relationship and their mental health and wellbeing. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the need for comprehensive support for both female patients with RA and their partners at all stages of reproductive decision-making. Health-care providers can identify opportunities for intervention that involves female patients with RA and their partners to minimize stress and its negative impacts on the family.
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 | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".