Understanding the psychosocial burden of living with advanced COPD in context of palliative care: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face substantial physical and psychosocial challenges influencing their quality of life. This study explored the psychosocial aspects of people with COPD attending palliative care services. Concurrent embedded mixed methods study with 22 individuals was conducted. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews and McGill Quality of Life-Revised and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires. Findings revealed a negative correlation between quality of life and psychological distress, emphasising that as disease severity increased, so did psychological distress. From interviews emerged three themes: adjustment to living with a debilitating disease, loss of identity and developing lifestyle coping strategies. To conclude, a biopsychosocial perspective to understanding the impact of COPD is essential in identifying mitigating factors which exacerbate disease burden and increase psychological distress of people living with COPD. Implementing a biopsychosocial framework can enhance care by furthering self-management, reducing psychological distress and promoting a person-centred approach.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".