MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376276162 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068340

PANDORA dyadic project: hope, spiritual well-being and quality of life of dyads of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Switzerland – a multicentre longitudinal mixed-methods protocol study

2023· article· en· W4376276162 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Filipa Baptista Peixoto Befecadu, Jérôme Stirnemann, Ivan Guerreiro, Tanja Fusi‐Schmidhauser, Cyril Jaksic, Philip Larkin, Maria Goreti Da Rocha Rodrigues, Sophie Pautex

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHôpitaux Universitaires de Genève
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)COPDVulnerability (computing)GerontologyDiseaseScale (ratio)Physical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is responsible for 2.9 million deaths annually in Europe. Symptom burden and functional decline rise as patients reach advanced stages of the disease enhancing risk of vulnerability and dependency on informal caregivers (ICs).Evidence shows that hope is an important psycho-social-spiritual construct that humans use to cope with symptom burden and adversity. Hope is associated with increased quality of life (QoL) comfort and well-being for patients and ICs. A better understanding of the meaning and experience of hope over time as patients transition through chronic illness may help healthcare professionals to plan and deliver care more appropriately. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a longitudinal multicentre mixed-methods study with a convergent design. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected from dyads of advanced COPD patients and their ICs in two university hospitals at two points in time. The Herth Hope Index, WHO Quality of Life BREF, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being and the French version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale will be used to collect data. Dyadic interviews will be conducted using a semi-structured interview guide with five questions about hope and their relationship with QoL.Statistical analysis of data will be carried out using R V.4.1.0. To test whether our theoretical model as a whole is supported by the data, structural equation modelling will be used. The comparison between T1 and T2 for level of hope, symptom burden, QoL and spiritual well-being, will be carried out using paired t-tests. The association between symptom burden, QoL, spiritual well-being and hope will be tested using Pearson correlation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Canton of Vaud. The identification number is 2021-02477.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207