Psychological symptoms and their correlates in pneumoconiosis patients: a bilingual scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Pneumoconiosis remains a global occupational and public health problem. This scoping review is aimed to identify the psychological symptoms and their correlates among pneumoconiosis patients. Methods: We conducted a bilingual scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies published between 2000 and 2025 were identified through searches of English-language (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect) and Chinese-language (CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, VIP) databases, using English and Chinese descriptors related to pneumoconiosis and psychological symptoms. The search was conducted from June 28 to July 5, 2025. Peer-reviewed empirical studies that reported quantitative psychological outcomes among patients diagnosed with pneumoconiosis were included. Results: A total of 55 studies were included in this review: 11 in English and 44 in Chinese. Considerable variability in reported prevalence was observed, primarily driven by differences in the instruments used and the cutoff criteria. For depression, with different diagnostic tools and criteria, Chinese studies reported prevalence ranging from 16.3% to 87.22%, and English studies reported prevalence ranging from 75.2% to 86.1%. For anxiety, again with varying assessment tools and criteria, Chinese studies reported rates from 9.5% to 61.97%, and English studies reported rates from 75% to 99.1%. Some studies also reported somatisation, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and sleep disturbances. Key correlates associated with these symptoms included biological, social, and psychological factors. Conclusion: This review synthesises evidence on the high prevalence of psychological symptoms among pneumoconiosis patients across diverse regions, which are associated with multifaceted factors. The scarcity of intervention studies, combined with methodological heterogeneity in existing research, underscores the urgent need for standardized assessment tools and the development of context-sensitive, biopsychosocial care models for this population.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".