Is self-disclosure in couples coping with cancer associated with improvement in depressive symptoms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined associations between the degree of self-disclosure and changes in depressive symptoms in couples coping with colorectal cancer. METHOD: Sixty-four newly diagnosed patients and their partners completed a measure of depressive symptoms (Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) 3 and 9 months postdiagnosis. Furthermore, approximately 2 months after the first assessment, they engaged in a cancer-related conversation in which the patient was asked to introduce a concern. Each partner's verbalizations of emotions, thoughts, and wishes (i.e., self-disclosures) were coded by independent observers. RESULTS: Patients who reported more depressive symptoms at baseline showed more self-disclosures. Mutual self-disclosure was not associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms in patients and partners as compared with one-sided self-disclosure or low disclosure in both patients and partners. It is important to note that decreases in depressive symptoms over time were least prominent in couples in which the partner disclosed a lot whereas the patient disclosed little. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that mere disclosure of emotions and thoughts to one's intimate partner is not beneficial in reducing distress. Partners' self-disclosure toward patients who disclose few emotions and concerns even appears to be harmful both for patients and partners, given that it reduces the decrease of depressive symptoms over time. If there is a mismatch in the need for self-disclosure within couples, partners with a strong need to talk about their emotions and concerns may be recommended to confide in someone else in their social network or to consult a health care professional.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".