Spiritual well‐being and its relationship with patient characteristics and other patient‐reported outcomes in peritoneal dialysis patients: Findings from the PDOPPS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spiritual well-being (SWB), an individual's understanding of the meaning and purpose of life, may help patients with chronic or terminal illnesses cope with their diseases. This study aimed to assess SWB in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), as well as its relationship with patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: The data were obtained from questionnaires that formed part of the PD Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS). Measures used in this study were SWB scores derived from the WHO quality of life, spirituality, religiousness and personal beliefs (WHOQOL-SRPB) tool including 32 items from eight facets; physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-10 (CES-D-10) scores, burden of kidney disease scores and functional status scores. RESULTS: Overall, 529 out of 848 participants (62%) completely responded to the questionnaires and were included in the analysis. Over two-thirds of PD patients (70%) had moderate or higher SWB scores. The SWB scores were significantly lower in patients with age >65 years and unemployed status. SWB scores positively correlated with higher PCS, MCS, burden of kidney disease scores and functional status scores, while negatively correlated with depression scores by CES-D-10 scale. Patients who reported significant depressive symptoms (CES-D-10 score ≥ 10) had significantly lower SWB scores. CONCLUSION: Better SWB was significantly associated with better health-related QOL (HRQOL) and the absence of depressive symptoms. SWB may be an essential consideration in the delivery of high-quality PD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".