Perspectives of husbands of women with breast cancer: Impact and response
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When breast cancer is diagnosed, it has the potential to have an impact on a woman's partner and influence how the male partner can support the woman. This qualitative study was undertaken to explore the impact on male partners of having a wife who has been diagnosed with breast cancer. In-depth interviews with 15 husbands provided a rich sense of the nature of the impact and how these men responded to it. Analysis revealed two overarching themes: (1) the diagnosis was shocking and unexpected, and (2) the impact of breast cancer on the male partner is wide-ranging. The respondents described a wide range of changes that had occurred in their lives since the unexpected, shocking diagnosis. They shared vivid accounts of personal emotional reactions, changes in daily work life and household responsibilities, worries about children, and changes in their relationships with their wives. They experienced ongoing struggles to balance the demands within their lives. Two significant challenges these men described were coping with work-related demands and sorting out how to be supportive to their wives. Clearly, the breast cancer diagnosis had an impact on these men and created personal tension for them. Cancer nurses need to be aware of this impact, acknowledge the sense of vulnerability it can create in male partners, and work to find effective ways to support them.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it