Coping Styles in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: Consideration in the Co-Designing of Integrated Care Concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated care models may help in designing care for Parkinson's disease (PD) that is more efficient and patient-centered. However, in order to implement such models successfully, it is important to design these models around patients' needs and preferences. Personality traits and coping styles play a well-studied important role in patients' disease perception and their utilization of medical and social services to cope with their disease. There is evidence that coping styles remain largely unchanged over the course of PD; coping styles are defined in the early stages of life and extend over the entire lifespan of the patient. Therefore, it seems necessary to consider aspects of the personality traits and coping styles of PD patients in the development and implementation of care models. We postulate that by taking patients' personality traits and coping styles into account, care models for PD can be designed in a more individualized and, thus, more effective way. This paper, structured in three main sections, attempts to structure the uptake of patients' coping styles in the co-design of integrated care models. However, further studies are needed to better develop tailored care concepts to the needs of people living with PD and their individual coping styles.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".