Perceived dignity is an unrecognized source of emotional distress in patients with rheumatic diseases: Results from the validation of the Mexican version of the Patient Dignity Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dignity has rarely been explored in patients with rheumatic diseases (RMDs), which contrasts with patients´ observations that dignity is a relevant area for research focus. The study's primary objective was to adapt and validate the Mexican version of the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI-Mx) in patients with RMDs, and to estimate the proportion of patients with distress related to perceived dignity (DPD) assessed with the PDI-Mx. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was developed in 2 phases. Phase 1 consisted of pilot testing and questionnaire feasibility (n = 50 patients), PDI-Mx content validity (experts' agreement), construct validity (exploratory factor analysis), discriminant validity (Heterotrait-Monotrait correlations' rate [HTMT]), criterion validity (Spearman correlations) and PDI-Mx reliability with internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest (intra-class correlation coefficients [ICC]) in 220 additional outpatients (among whom 30 underwent test-retest). Phase 2 consisted of quantifying DPD (PDI-Mx cut-off ≥54.4) in 290 outpatients with RMDs. RESULTS: Overall, patients were representative of typical outpatients with RMDs from a National tertiary care level center. The 25-item PDI-Mx was found feasible, valid (experts' agreement ≥82%; a 4-factor structure accounted for 68.7% of the total variance; HTMT = 0.608; the strength of the correlations was moderate to high between the PDI-Mx, the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale dimensions scores, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score) and reliable (Cronbach's ɑ = 0.962, ICC = 0.939 [95%CI = 0.913-0.961]). DPD was present in 78 patients (26.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The PDI-Mx questionnaire showed good psychometric properties for assessing DPD in our population. Perceived dignity in patients with RMDs might be an unrecognized source of emotional distress.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".