Emotional Awareness, Relationship Quality, and Satisfaction in Patients With Parkinson’s Disease and Their Spousal Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the relationship quality and satisfaction in couples, in which one partner had PD, obtaining the perspective of both patients and partner and to examine the impact of alexithymia, empathy, depression, and anxiety on ratings of relationship quality and satisfaction. Fifteen PD patients and partners completed the following scales: the Dyadic Adjustment Scale; Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI); the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale; the Empathy Quotient; the Hamilton Depression and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). We evaluated patients' motor functions by means of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and patients' quality of life by means of the PD Questionnaire. Patients were significantly less satisfied with the relationship than their partners as revealed by CSI (p = 0.031) and they were more depressed (p = 0.003) and anxious (p = 0.015). A negative correlation between measures of relationship quality and satisfaction and alexithymia was found in the patients group. No correlations were found between measures of relationship quality and satisfaction (both of patients and partners) and any other demographical and clinical variables. CSI and HAM-A were predictors of patient's social support evaluation. The presence of alexithymia in PD is an important factor affecting relationship quality and satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".