MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7020601140

The Mediating Role of Alexithymia in the Relationship between Social Support and Death Anxiety in Hemodialysis Patients: A Structural Equation Model Analysis

2024· article· en· W7020601140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaDeath anxietyLikert scaleStructural equation modelingSocial supportToronto Alexithymia ScaleAnxietyHemodialysisScale (ratio)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose: Hemodialysis patients often face various psychological challenges that can significantly affect their overall health. Alexithymia is a construct that refers to the inability to distinguish between emotions and bodily reactions, difficulty describing emotions to others, and a cognitive style that is driven by reality and concrete situations. Various studies have shown that alexithymia is significantly and positively correlated with many psychiatric disorders. Moreover, as a factor, it hurts mental health (especially anxiety) and the quality of life of hemodialysis patients. Therefore, this research aimed to determine the mediating role of alexithymia in the relationship between social support and death anxiety in hemodialysis patients. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional and analytical study was conducted on 235 patients at Sari Shahrvand dialysis center, Iran 2023. Patients were included in the study by convenient sampling method. Data collection was done using demographic information questionnaires, Templer's Death Anxiety Scale (DAS-15), Zimmet's Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Demographic information included gender, place of residence, level of education, duration of hemodialysis treatment, number of visits per week, history of underlying diseases, and history of hemodialysis. Templer's death anxiety scale includes 15 questions in the form of a 5-point Likert scale regarding thoughts of death, fear of death, talking about death, fear, and thinking about incurable diseases. Zimmet's multidimensional scale of perceived social support is a 12-question instrument in the form of a 7-point Likert scale, which was used to evaluate perceived social support from three subscales of friends, family, and significant others. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale was a 20-question questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale, with three subscales: difficulty in recognizing emotions, difficulty in describing emotions, and objective thinking (Externally oriented), which was used to evaluate alexithymia. Finally, the data was analyzed by descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling with the bootstrap method, utilizing SPSS 26 and AMOS 22. Results: The study revealed that most participants were male, comprising 58.3% of the statistical population. The average scores for death anxiety, perceived social support, and alexithymia were 38.97±10.31, 4.88±1.26, and 55.72±9.76, respectively. The results suggest that there is no statistically significant relationship between social support scores and death anxiety (B=-0.13 (-0.30, 0.04), P=0.153), nor between social support and alexithymia (B=-0.12 (-0.28, 0.09), P=0.256). However, there is a significant and direct relationship between alexithymia and death anxiety (B=0.66 (0.46, 0.82), P=0.016). Conclusion: Considering the significant and direct relationship between alexithymia and death anxiety, it is recommended that managers and healthcare planners regularly evaluate the presence of death anxiety and alexithymia among individuals and formulate targeted interventions to alleviate these conditions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→