Social Support and Adjustment Among Wives of Men with Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to understand how wives' mental health and life enjoyment are affected by their perceptions of the sufficiency of the support they render to their husbands who have prostate cancer. Its specific purpose is to determine whether these outcomes accrue more strongly to wives who perceive their husbands coping in avoidant ways. Drawing on data from an interview study of 51 wives of men diagnosed with prostate cancer, the authors employ heiarchical regression analysis to examine the wives' adjustment in relation to their provision of support to their husbands. Our findings reveal a significant moderating effect of the husbands' avoidant coping; consistent with cognitive dissonance theory, wives who provided sufficient support to more avoidant husbands demonstrated better mental health and life enjoyment than wives of men who were less avoidant. In addition, the perceived sufficiency of the support provided by the wives' social networks had a stronger bearing on their adjustment than the support provided by their husbands. These findings add to our understanding of the psychological benefits that support providers derive when they communicate support in ways that suit the recipient's style of managing threat.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".