Les effets du sens de la cohérence sur la santé : une revue systématique de la littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The sense of coherence is a concept developed in psychology, defining an individual’s ability to understand its environment, mobilise resources to face events, and find a sufficient meaning in these events to justify resources mobilisation. Numerous studies suggested that SOC has a positive effect on health, but no literature review collected these results since 2007. The aim of our review was to search for SOC effects on health indicators. METHODS: Our literature review has followed PRISMA recommendations. Studies quality was evaluated using Newcastle and Ottawa grid. In order to find a possible causality, longitudinal studies only were included. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. Thirteen of them concerned ambulatory care. Most positive criteria were pain, quality of life, lifestyle, and mortality. A link was found in 68% of the studies criteria: a greater SOC score implied better results. Nine of the investigated studies were of good quality. Our review was of average quality, once evaluated with AMSTAR 2 grid. DISCUSSION: Our literature review confirms SOC causal effect on health and our study brings forward a higher level of evidence. More studies should be done to find out whether targeted interventions can increase the SOC and if this increase could affect health indicators. Our thesis suggests that the concept of salutogenesis should be used in health care and his teaching in medical studies should be encouraged.
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 | 0.036 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".