Factors Associated With Distress Related to Perceived Dignity in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The loss of perceived dignity is an existential source of human suffering, described in patients with cancer and chronic diseases and hospitalized patients but rarely explored among patients with rheumatic diseases (RMDs). We recently observed that distress related to perceived dignity (DPD) was present in 26.9% of Mexican patients with different RMDs. The study aimed to investigate the factors associated with DPD. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed between February and September 2022. Consecutive patients with RMDs completed patient-reported outcomes (to assess mental health, disease activity/severity, disability, fatigue, quality of life [QoL], satisfaction with medical care, and family function) and had a rheumatic evaluation to assess disease activity status and comorbidity. Sociodemographic variables and disease-related and treatment-related variables were retrieved with standardized formats. DPD was defined based on the Patient Dignity Inventory score. Multivariate regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Four hundred patients were included and were representative of outpatients with RMDs, while 7.5% each were inpatients and patients from the emergency care unit. There were 107 patients (26.8%) with DPD. Past mental health-related comorbidity (Odds Ratio [OR]: 4.680 [95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.906-11.491]), the number of immunosuppressive drugs/patient (OR: 1.683 [95% CI: 1.015-2.791]), the physical health dimension score of the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) (OR: 0.937 [95% CI: 0.907-0.967]), and the emotional health dimension score of the WHOQOL-BREF (OR: 0.895 [95% CI: 0.863-0.928]) were associated with DPD. CONCLUSIONS: DPD was present in a substantial proportion of patients with RMDs and was associated with mental health-related comorbidity, disease activity/severity-related variables, and the patient QoL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".