The perspectives and experiences of patients with COVID-19:a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature Search, G -Funds CollectionBackground.The expansion of COVID-19 and its unique transmission speed created an emergency situation in global health.This disease not only causes public health concerns but also has many psychological consequences for patients.In this situation, maintaining the mental health of individuals is essential.Therefore, focusing on the human aspects of the threat perceived by patients could lead the way for the provision of empathetic and effective care.Objectives.The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives and experiences of patients with COVID-19. Material and methods.In this qualitative study, 27 patients with COVID-19 were purposefully selected and interviewed in semi-structured in-depth manner.Interviews continued until data saturation.All interviews were recorded and analysed using the MAXQDA 10 software and the contractual content analysis method via the Graneheim and Lundman approach.The accuracy and robustness of the research was obtained based on Guba and Lincoln criteria.Results.The codes extracted from the interviews led to the emergence of two main themes including "negative emotions" and "sense of cohesion" and five categories of stigma experience, psychological distress, perceived threat, positive perception and spirituality.Conclusions.Individuals experience critical crises in the face of stressful life events, including COVID-19, from negative emotions to psychological adjustment.Going through the crisis stage and achieving stability and peace requires a change of attitude towards everything around the person and the use of spiritual forces to achieve adaptation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".