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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".