Psychological burden in atopic dermatitis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) patients present a high prevalence of psychological distress.They experience discomfort due to visible erythema and intense pruritus affecting sleep, mood and relationship quality.Patients need both medical and psychological assistance to improve symptoms and stress coping.Psychodermatological approach implies the presence of both psychologist and dermatologist in the patient's care process.Objective: Given the anxiety and depression prevalence in AD patients and their possible influence on treatment adherence, the present ongoing study investigates the relationship between different treatments (i.e., standard vs. biological drugs) and both dermatological and psychological outcomes.Methods: AD patients attending at the San Gallicano Dermatological Institute in Rome, Italy, between November 2022 and December 2023, were enrolled.Primary outcomes included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, range: 0-42), and its dimensions, i.e. depression and anxiety (range: 0-21).Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI, range: 0-30), Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS, range: 0-10) and Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI, range: 0-72) were also measured.Results: Of the 112 AD patients enrolled 62 were female (55.4%), mean age was 29.4 years, (SD=13.6).Most were students (N=45; 40.2%).The majority were receiving biological therapy (N=63; 56.3%), followed by topical (N=33; 29.5%), or standard systemic treatment (N=8; 7.1%).Outcomes' mean scores were: HADS, M=11.5 (SD= 6.6); anxiety, M=7.5 (SD=4.1);depression, M=3.4 (SD=3.03);DLQI, M=6.14 (SD=6.3);NRS, M=4.4 (SD=3.2);EASI, M=8.7 (SD=11.1).Over half of the participants (N=57, 50.9%) had an anxiety level above the cut-off.Biological therapy showed a positive effect on dermatological and psychological outcomes with a lower disease severity, lower mean level of anxiety, depression and pruritus compared to standard treatments.There were significant correlations between time on biological therapy, EASI (r=-0.38 p<0.05),NRS (r=-0.42,p<0.01) and DLQI (r=-0.044,p<0.01).No correlation emerged between time on biological therapy and anxiety.Discussion: Preliminary data show that clinically relevant anxiety level is high in AD patients.Although recent biological therapies seem to be effective in reducing dermatological symptoms and improving quality of life in this population, greater attention should be given to AD distressed patients.In the next study phase, participants with an anxiety and/or depression score above the HADS cut-off (≥8) will be offered psychological support.The clinical impact of this intervention will be also evaluated.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".