MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Relationship Between Meaning of Illness, Social Support, Coping Strategies, and Quality of Life for Lung Cancer Patients and Their Family Members

2006· article· en· W2015487901 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Lung Association
KeywordsCoping (psychology)MedicineMeaning (existential)Social supportLung cancerClinical psychologyFamily caregiversQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyPsychologyPsychotherapistNursingOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship between meaning of illness, perceived social support resources, coping strategies used, and quality of life (QOL) by patients with lung cancer and their family members. The study was cross-sectional using interview data from 85 patients and associated family members. Regression results showed that total QOL in patients with lung cancer is predicted most by meaning of illness, specifically, the illness being perceived as manageable. QOL in family members is predicted most by meaning of illness, specifically, less adverse impact. Interestingly, the overall meaning of illness, coping strategies used, and social support were similar in the 2 groups. The results of the study emphasize the importance of acknowledging the circumstances of people's lives, both patients surviving lung cancer and their family members, which contribute to QOL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it