Managing the Impact of Illness: The Experiences of Men with Prostate Cancer and their Spouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored issues of support and coping for couples where the man had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Thirty-four men with prostate cancer and their spouses were interviewed separately at three points in time: prior to surgery; 8 to 10 weeks post-surgery; and 11 to 13 months post-surgery. The core category for the couples' experience with diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer was Managing the Impact of Illness. Five major domains emerged, including: dealing with the practicalities; stopping illness from interfering with everyday life; keeping relationships working; managing feelings; and making sense of it all. While it was clearly important for couples to manage illness and to reduce its potential intrusion into everyday life, this strategy had psychological costs as well as benefits. Men struggled to stay in control of their emotions and their lives, typically vacillating between the pulls of fierce self-reliance and fearful neediness. Women were constrained from employing their usual strategies of coping and were distressed by the complicated requirements of being supportive while also honoring their partners' need for self-reliance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".