Finding meaning in chronic illness and its relationship to psychological well-being: A mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several theories propose that health-related adversity threatens an individual's worldviews, goals, and sense of purpose, which motivates them to search for meaning. This process is believed to lead to positive adjustment and personal growth. The purpose of our study was to (a) examine whether a health-related adversity motivated a search for meaning, (b) explore the ways individuals made sense of their health-related adversity, and (c) examine whether meaning making was related to acceptance, subjective well-being (positive affect, negative affect, satisfaction with life), and posttraumatic growth (PTG). Using a mixed-methods design, we collected data from 317 adults diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Participants completed a survey online. The survey included a set of validated measures that assessed acceptance, psychological adjustment, and PTG, as well as several open-ended questions. Approximately 85% of participants reported asking why me? Of those who reported that they found meaning, our thematic analysis revealed five meaning-making themes: catalyst for personal growth, self-blame, divine intervention, genetics, and chance. Our profile analysis compared three meaning-making groups (i.e., found meaning, still searching, found no meaning/not searching) and revealed that individuals who found meaning reported more positive affect and perceived more PTG than individuals still searching or who had not found meaning. Our data support theories of growth that suggest meaning making plays an important role in adjusting to adversity. We discuss cognitive and narrative-type therapeutic approaches that rehabilitation counselors could apply when supporting individuals coping with chronic illnesses.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 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".