Caregiving styles and attachment orientations in couples facing advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines associations between caregiving styles and caregivers' and patients' attachment orientations among couples facing advanced cancer. Four caregiving styles were examined: proximate, sensitive, controlling, and compulsive. METHOD: A total of 110 patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancer and their spouse caregivers were recruited. Measures included: the Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory, the Caregiving Questionnaire, and the Demand Subscale from the Caregiving Burden Scale. RESULTS: Caregivers reported high levels of proximate and sensitive caregiving and moderate levels of controlling and compulsive caregiving. Hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the contribution of caregivers' and patients' attachment orientations to each caregiving style while controlling for caregiving demands. Both caregiving proximity and sensitive caregiving were negatively associated with caregivers' avoidant attachment. Controlling caregiving was positively related to caregivers' avoidant and anxious attachment orientations. Compulsive caregiving was positively associated with caregiving demand and caregivers' attachment anxiety. In addition, compulsive caregiving was positively associated with patients' attachment avoidance and negatively associated with patients' attachment anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated two clusters of ways to provide care: other-oriented and self-oriented. The study revealed that both patients' and caregivers' attachment orientations contributed to caregivers' patterns of caregiving. Insecure attachment orientations and resulting couple interaction patterns of 'demand-withdrawal' and 'avoidance-pursuit' are potential sources of distress that may benefit from exploration in psychotherapeutic interventions for couples facing advanced cancer. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".