The mediating role of coping between Alexithymia and mental health problems among women with PCOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) serves as a challenge for women globally, with a never-ending struggle with Alexithymia and mental health problems. To assess Alexithymia in women diagnosed with PCOS and the mediating effect of coping strategies emotion-focused coping (EFC), problem-focused coping (PFC), and dysfunctional coping (DC) between Alexithymia and mental health problems (anxiety, depression, behavior control, and positive affect) among women diagnosed with PCOS living in Islamabad, Pakistan. This mediation study was conducted in Islamabad. A hundred women with PCOS were approached for this study through various OB/Gynae clinics and fertility groups on social media. Participants completed the Perth Alexithymia Scale, Brief Cope Inventory, and Mental Health Inventory. The results suggest that significant mediation exists of EFC (p = .09) between Alexithymia and anxiety, EFC (p = .02) between Alexithymia and depression, EFC (p = .01) between alexithymia and behavior control in addition, significant mediation of EFC (p = .04) exists between Alexithymia and positive affect. Coping (EFC, PFC, and DC) partially mediates between Alexithymia and mental health problems (anxiety, depression, behavior control, and positive affect) among women diagnosed with PCOS. Further analysis suggests that DCS has a negative mediating effect between Alexithymia and mental health problems (M-anxiety = -.0465; p = .13, M-depression = -.0461; p < .01, M-behavior control = -.0431; p < .01 and M-positive affect = .0333; p = .02). The mediating result is significant for EFC between alexithymia and mental health problems whereas, PFC partially mediates and DC has a significant negative mediating effect between Alexithymia and mental health problems among women with PCOS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".