MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415382935 · doi:10.1177/13591053251384387

Beyond the skin: Stories of advocacy and resilience from women with Hidradenitis Suppurativa

2025· article· en· W4415382935 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kenzie Tapp, Jasmine Kobrosli, Jessica Kichler, Natalie Giannotti, Kendall Soucie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsReflexivityHidradenitis suppurativaThematic analysisAgency (philosophy)SituatedQualitative researchPsychological resilienceSocial constructionismQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, recurrent inflammatory skin condition that significantly impacts quality of life. The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of women diagnosed with HS by amplifying a more integrative, strength-based understanding of the condition. We explored the lived experiences of 25 Canadian women with HS, focusing on their challenges with HS and how they overcame them through strategies of resilience and meaning-making. Reflexive thematic analysis techniques, situated with a feminist social constructionist lens, generated four major themes: (1) Developing Agency in Symptom Management, (2) Cultivating Methods to Cope, (3) Harnessing One's Voice for Advocacy and Change, and (4) Gaining Insight and Growth Through Life-Long Learning. This study provides critical insights into improving care and support for women with HS, emphasizing the importance of patient-centered and holistic approaches to HS care that prioritize resilience and address systemic inequities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.021
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207