Comparing the Quality of Life of Patients and their Family Members with Dermatological and other Chronic Conditions, in The Bahamas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objectives: Impact of dermatological and other chronic conditions not only affects the quality of life (QoL) of patients but also that of their family members. This pilot study aimed to compare the QoL impact of dermatological and other chronic conditions on patients with the QoL impact on their family members. Methods: A cross-sectional study using validated QoL questionnaires was conducted. In the dermatological group, patients (>17 years) completed the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire, while children (4-16 years) completed the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) questionnaire. Family members (>18 years) completed both Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) and Family Dermatology Life Quality Index (FDLQI) questionnaires. In the other chronic conditions group, patients (>17 years) completed the World Health Organization Quality of Life -BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) questionnaire and children (4-17 years) completed The Revised Children’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (KINDL-r: Kiddy KINDL, Kid KINDL and Kiddo KINDL). Family members completed the FROM-16 questionnaire. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS™ statistical software. Results: Forty-four participants completed the study. In the dermatological group (n=26), there was a weak negative correlation between DLQI and FDLQI scores (r= –0.23, p=0.55) not between DLQI and FROM-16 (r = –0.04, p=0.92). There was a very strong positive relationship between both CDLQI and FDLQI (r=0.83, p=0.17) and CDLQI and FROM-16 (r=0.82, p=0.18). Although not statistically significant, there may be a correlation between the FROM-16 and FDLQI scores for family members of dermatology patients. In the chronic conditions group (n=18) the mean score of WHOQoL-BREF was 90.5 (SD=13) with a significant negative inverse relationship to FROM-16 (r= –1.000, p=<0.001). The KINDL-r scores (mean=66, SD =11) showed no significant correlation (r= –0.24, p=0.61) with FROM-16 scores (mean=9.6, SD=3.7). Conclusion: The impact of a patient’s dermatological or other chronic condition can not only negatively affect the patient’s QoL but also the QoL of their family members.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".