Religiosity and Spiritual/Religious Coping in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spirituality/Religiosity (S/R) plays an important role in chronic diseases coping, improvement of quality of life (QL) and adherence to treatment. There is a gap in studies regarding Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) coping and if S/R can help in metabolic control and complications decrease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the religiosity profile and relevance of spiritual/religious coping in adult patients with T1DM. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted in outpatient care in 56 T1DM patients in a tertiary service. Patients filled out questionnaires referring to demographic and clinical data, socioeconomic classification, the Index of Religiosity of the University of Duke - Duke scale (DUREL), and an adaptated Spiritual-Religious Coping scale (SRCOPE). RESULTS: The analysis of the positive SRCOPE (PSRCOPE) showed a low / medium score (3.3 ± 0.7), whereas for the negative SRCOPE (NSRCOPE) it was low (2.0 ± 0.7), and the use of the total SRCOPE was considered high (3.7 ± 0.4), the NSRCOPE/ PSRCOPE ratio was 0.7 ± 0.2, demonstrating a predominance of PSRCOPE in relation to NSRCOPE. The organizational, non-organizational and intrinsic religiosities presented a correlation with PSRCOPE and total SRCOPE. Only intrinsic religiosity showed a significant correlation with anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: It was found that non-organizational and intrinsic religiosity had a high index. The obtained score for positive and negative SRCOPE showed a PSRCOPE predominance. There was significant correlation, between the scores of religiosity and coping. The next step is to evaluate the impact of these findings in clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".