Patient Perspectives and Experiences With Medication for Gout: A Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe patients' perspectives and experiences of gout medications to inform patient-centered practice. METHOD: We performed a systematic review (using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL databases) and thematic analysis of studies using qualitative methodology from database inception up to May 2023. RESULTS: Five dominant themes were identified in 45 studies involving 1203 patients: denying illness, negotiating uncertainty, juggling competing priorities, minimizing symptoms and lifestyle restrictions, and developing strategies and empowerment. CONCLUSION: Patients with gout wanted to avoid suffering and lifestyle restrictions but were concerned with stigmatization and were uncertain about medications. Comprehensive information about the disease and reframing the role of the different medications is needed to overcome the barriers of adherence to available and effective treatment. Our results highlight the fundamental importance of maintaining a patient-centered focus and include some avenues of how clinicians may redefine their approach to gout management.
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 | 0.059 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".