MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317871070 · doi:10.1007/s10880-023-09937-5

Exploring the Impact of Covid-19-Related Perceptions on Psychological Distress and Quality of Life in an International Gastrointestinal Cohort Over Time Guided by the Common Sense Model

2023· article· en· W4317871070 on OpenAlexaff
Simon R. Knowles, Stéphan Möller, Andreas Stengel, Antonina Mikocka‐Walus, Nuno Ferreira, Inês A. Trindade, Anna Mokrowiecka, Johan Burisch, Manuel Barreiro‐de Acosta, Çharles N. Bernstein, Bobby Lo, David Skvarc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychological distressQuality of life (healthcare)CohortPerceptionPsychologyEmotional distressDistress2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineClinical psychologyMental healthPublic healthAnxietyPsychotherapistPsychiatryVirologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine changes in COVID-19 and illness-related perceptions, gastrointestinal symptoms, coping, catastrophising, psychological distress, and QoL during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 831 adults with a gastrointestinal condition completed an online questionnaire at baseline (May-October 2020). Of those, 270 (32.5%) participants (85.2% female, mean age = 47.3 years) provided follow-up data (March-May 2021). Repeated-measures multiple analysis of variance and a cross-lagged panel model were used to test the study hypotheses. Gastrointestinal symptoms and COVID-19 perceptions at follow-up were strongly predicted by their baseline values, while illness perceptions were predicted by baseline gastrointestinal symptoms. Cross-lagged relationships indicated a reciprocal relationship between gastrointestinal symptoms and psychological distress. Moreover, gastrointestinal symptoms had substantial predictive utility, strongly predicting future gastrointestinal symptoms, and to a lesser extent, more negative illness perceptions, greater psychological distress, and greater use of adaptive coping strategies across time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.424
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Psychology in Medical SettingsSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207