A Focus Group Study of Self-Management in Patients With Glomerular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with glomerular disease experience symptoms that impair their physical and mental health while managing their treatments, diet, appointments and monitoring general and specific indicators of health and their illness. We sought to describe the perspectives of patients and their care partners on self-management in glomerular disease. METHODS: = 34) in Australia, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and United States. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: We identified the following 4 themes: empowered in autonomy (gaining confidence through understanding, taking ownership of disease and treatment, learning a positive health approach); overwhelmed by compounding treatment burdens (financially undermined and depleted, demoralized by side effects and harms, frustrated by fragmented and inflexible care, fear of possible drug harms); striving for stability and normalcy (making personal sacrifices, maximizing life participation, attentiveness to bodily signs, avoiding precarious health states, integrating medicines into routines); and necessity of health-sustaining relationships (buoyed by social support, fulfilling meaningful responsibilities, sharing and normalizing experiences, seeking a trusting and respectful alliance). CONCLUSION: Patients with glomerular disease and their care partners value their capacity for autonomy and disease ownership, stability of their health, and relationships that support self-management. Strategies directed at strengthening these factors may increase self-efficacy and improve the care and outcomes for patients with glomerular disease.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".