Illness perceptions and their association with two-year functional status and change in patients with hand osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo investigate the association between illness perceptions and disability both cross-sectionally and over 2 years in patients with hand OA.MethodsIllness perceptions and self-reported disability were assessed at baseline and after 2 years in 384 patients with primary hand OA (mean age 61 years, 84% women, n = 312 with follow-up) with the Illness Perception Questionnaire – Revised (IPQ-R), Functional Index for Hand OA, Australian/Canadian Hand OA Index and HAQ. Risk ratios for high disability (highest quartile) at both time points were estimated for tertiles of IPQ-R dimensions, using Poisson regression. The mean IPQ dimension change difference between patients with and without disability progression (change Functional Index for Hand OA ⩾ 1, Australian/Canadian Hand OA Index > 1.4, HAQ > 0.22) was estimated with linear regression. Analyses were adjusted for age, Doyle index and baseline score.ResultsAt baseline, stronger negative illness perceptions were associated with high disability. Baseline illness perceptions were also associated with high disability after 2 years, although adjustment made apparent that these associations were confounded by baseline disability status. Most illness perceptions changed over 2 years; understanding increased, OA was regarded as more chronic and fewer emotions and consequences and less personal and treatment control were experienced. The 2 year change in disability was different between patients with and without progression for the illness perceptions of more perceived consequences, symptoms, treatment control and emotions.ConclusionIllness perceptions seemed to be implicated in disability and its progression. Our results suggest that interventions could focus on improving baseline disability, potentially using illness perceptions to accomplish this goal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".