Relationship vulnerabilities during breast cancer: patient and partner perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Close interpersonal relationships play a crucial role in a woman's adjustment to breast cancer. To date, the literature has focused primarily on characteristics or behaviors of the well spouse that influence a woman's adaptation to the illness. The present qualitative investigation extended this literature by adopting an interactional perspective based on the underlying assumption that relationship partners' coping and distress is mutually influential. The focus of the analysis was patient and partner perceptions of relationship strife or tension over the course of the illness based on the notion that such interactions may be as or more harmful to relationships than supportive exchanges are helpful. METHOD: Nineteen women (at different stages of the illness) and eleven male spouses were interviewed about their experiences in relation to breast cancer. Nine of the men and nine of the women were relationship partners. Interview text was subjected to a thematic analysis and informed by grounded theory principles. RESULTS: Two higher-order categories of Personal Characteristics (both patient and partner) and Relationship Dynamics that impeded couple adjustment defined the overall theme of Relationship Vulnerabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study are situated within a broader developmental framework wherein breast cancer is considered a catastrophic life event that challenges the assimilation and accommodation processes of both partners in the relationship. For couples that are able to overcome the relationship challenges associated with the illness, there is the potential for mutual growth, and a deepening and strengthening of the relationship. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".