Cited by 11Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchHealth and Well-being StudiesSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases

The relations of quality of life in patients with lupus erythematosus: Regression models versus qualitative comparative analysis

Castellano Rioja, Elena, Valero‐Moreno, Selene, del Carmen Giménez‐Espert, María, Prado‐Gascó, Vicente·2019·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Background: Lupus erythematosus (LE) is an autoimmune disease that can have negative repercussions on the quality of life (QL) of those who suffer from it. The QL can be influenced by socio‐demographic factors are related to the disease itself. Aims: To analyse the associative power of socio‐demographic (age and sex) and medical variables (type of lupus, diagnostic time and symptomatically associated with lupus) on the QL in patients with lupus by comparing linear relations models and models based on comparative qualitative fuzzy analysis. Design: This is a retrospective cross‐sectional design. Participants: The sample consisted of 161 patients (88.4% female) diagnosed with LE between the ages of 18–66 years. Methods: Data were collected between 2015 ‐ 2017 using the Lupus Erythematosus Quality of Life Questionnaire. Two different statistical methodologies were used: traditional regression models and qualitative comparative analysis models of fuzzy sets. Results: The results of the regression model suggest that none of the variables considered could explain the QL of these patients. On the other hand, the results of the fuzzy models suggest that being female, young and a shorter time to diagnosis explain higher levels of QL in these types of patients. Conclusions: Since nurses are the people who interact most with patients, detecting risk groups of patients with lupus respect to their QL. This can help develop intervention programs from a nursing perspective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.13957

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Castellano Rioja, E., Valero‐Moreno, S., del Carmen Giménez‐Espert, M., & Prado‐Gascó, V.
Affiliations
  • Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing Catholic University of Valencia Valencia Spain
  • Universitat de València (ES)
  • Department of Nursing, Faculty of Infemeria and Podiatry University of Valencia Valencia Spain
Corresponding author
Prado‐Gascó, Vicente
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-02-27
Volume
75
Issue
7
Pages
1484-1492
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2914315725
Cited by
11
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Keywords
lupus erythematosus, quality of life, autoimmune disease, qualitative comparative analysis, fuzzy sets, regression models, time to diagnosis, sex differences, age, systemic lupus erythematosus, lupus nephritis, nursing interventions
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Regression Analysis, Retrospective Studies, Fuzzy Logic, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review