Couples coping with cancer: exploration of theoretical frameworks from dyadic studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment are distressing not only for the person directly affected, but also for their intimate partner. The aim of this review is to (a) identify the main theoretical frameworks underpinning research addressing dyadic coping among couples affected by cancer, (b) summarise the evidence supporting the concepts described in these theoretical frameworks, and (c) examine the similarities and differences between these theoretical perspectives. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify descriptive studies published between 1990 and 2013 (English and French) that examined the interdependence of patients' and partners' coping, and the impact of coping on psychosocial outcomes. Data were extracted using a standardised form and reviewed by three of the authors. RESULTS: Twenty-three peer-reviewed manuscripts were identified, from which seven theoretical perspectives were derived: Relationship-Focused Coping, Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, Systemic-Transactional Model (STM) of dyadic coping, Collaborative Coping, Relationship Intimacy model, Communication models, and Coping Congruence. Although these theoretical perspectives emphasised different aspects of coping, a number of conceptual commonalities were noted. CONCLUSION: This review identified key theoretical frameworks of dyadic coping used in cancer. Evidence indicates that responses within the couple that inhibit open communication between partner and patient are likely to have an adverse impact on psychosocial outcomes. Models that incorporate the interdependence of emotional responses and coping behaviours within couples have an emerging evidence base in psycho-oncology and may have greatest validity and clinical utility in this setting.
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 | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".