The Impact of Self-Management Abilities, Sleep Quality, and Anxiety on the Well-Being of Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) management prioritizes urological symptoms while neglecting psychological impacts on subjective well-being (SWB). Although chronic disease-SWB associations are established, limited evidence exists regarding interactive effects of psychosocial factors (sleep, anxiety, self-management) in BPH populations. This multicenter cross-sectional study enrolled 412 BPH patients from 6 tertiary hospitals in Northwest China. Validated instruments assessed key variables: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index for sleep quality, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale for psychological distress, Memorial University of Newfoundland Happiness Scale for SWB, and Chinese Self-Management Ability Scale for behavioral competencies. Structural equation modeling elucidated pathway relationships. Of the patients, 72.5% experienced sleep disorders, and 79.0% reported anxiety. Regression analysis indicated that income (β = 1.378, P < .01) and self-management abilities (β = 0.074, P < .01) positively impacted SWB, while anxiety (β = −0.155, P < .01) and sleep disorders (β = −0.581, P < .01) negatively affected it. The structural equation model revealed a direct effect of self-management abilities on SWB of 0.20 and an indirect effect of 0.16. This study contributes to the field by proposing a comprehensive, patient-centered model of care that can improve both the quality of life and long-term outcomes for BPH patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".