Childhood trauma, attachment style, and a couple's experience of terminal cancer: Case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this article is to elucidate the significance of psychosocial distress and risk in a sub-population of end-stage cancer patients and their spouse caregivers who present with an especially challenging attachment style and histories of childhood trauma. The case study presented highlights the need to both identify and offer an empirically validated couple-based intervention, along with a multi-disciplinary team approach over the trajectory of the illness and at end of life. METHOD: A validated marital protocol (emotionally focused couple therapy [EFT]) is modified for this population and conducted by an EFT-trained psychologist as part of a pilot investigation as to the feasibility and effectiveness of EFT for the terminal cancer population. Measures of marital distress, depression, hopelessness, and attachment security are completed at baseline and subsequent intervals, as reported in another publication. Attachment insecurity and the exquisitely intimate relationship with caregiving and care receiving are underscored, given the couple's traumatic childhood history. RESULTS: The couple described herein, followed from diagnosis of metastatic disease to end of life illuminates the potential effectiveness of a modified EFT protocol, and underscores the need to both identify and intervene with a population potentially at significantly high risk for marital distress, suicidality, depression, and hopelessness. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The benefits of a multidisciplinary team is evident as the patient's symptoms of physical distress increased toward end of life and she returned to earlier behaviors, namely suicidal ideation and an attempt to alleviate her experience of suffering. The strength of the marital bond, possibly as a result of the intervention, and the efforts of the multidisciplinary team approach, demonstrate potential to mitigate a catastrophic end of life and a complicated spousal bereavement. This case study adds to the current empirical literature in an area that is currently under-studied and under-reported.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".