Prevalence of loneliness and its correlates among patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on loneliness and its correlates in patients with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prevalence and correlates of loneliness in patients with schizophrenia, currently in clinical remission. METHODOLOGY: A total of 160 patients of schizophrenia in clinical remission were assessed on UCLA Loneliness Scale, Positive and Negative syndrome scale, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness Scale, Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, Brief COPE, Beck's Hopelessness Scale, Brief Dyadic Scale of Expressed Emotions, and Self-report Quality of Life Measure. RESULTS: = 9.13) years. The prevalence of loneliness in the study sample was 80%, with mean total UCLA-loneliness scale score of 30.04 (16.9).Compared to participants without loneliness, those with loneliness had had higher CDSS score, had poor quality of life, lower self-esteem, experienced higher level of stigma, more often used maladaptive coping strategies such as self-blaming and reported a higher level of hopelessness. In the correlation analysis, higher level of loneliness was associated higher severity of depression, higher level of stigma (except for stigma resistance) and discrimination, poorer quality of life, lower self-esteem, perception of a higher level of expressed emotions, higher use of maladaptive coping in the domains of behavioral disengagement, and self-blaming, and a higher level of hopelessness. In regression analysis, the maximum variance of loneliness was explained by quality of life score (29%), followed by hopelessness score (8.8%) and discrimination score (2%). CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of loneliness in patients with schizophrenia, and there is a need to routinely evaluate the patients of schizophrenia for loneliness and address the same.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".