Linkages Among Empathic Behaviors, Physical Symptoms, and Psychological Distress in Patients With Ovarian Cancer: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explore linkages among empathic responding by informal caregivers with the physical symptom experiences and psychological distress of patients with ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Preliminary, descriptive, correlational, and cross-sectional. SETTING: Psychosocial oncology support group in Canada. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 13 women with stage I-IV ovarian cancer with the majority diagnosed with disease recurrence. METHODS: Data were collected on a single telephone call using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Empathic Responding Scale, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, and the Dyadic Perspective-Taking Scale. Analysis included a correlation of variables. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Empathic responding, physical symptom experiences, and psychological distress. FINDINGS: Preliminary findings provided partial support for linkages among the perceived empathic behaviors of informal caregivers and the psychological distress and physical symptom experiences of patients with ovarian cancer. Patients who were more depressed reported elevated symptom experiences. Patients also reported more anxiety and depression when they perceived that their informal caregivers were engaging in less empathic behaviors toward them. CONCLUSIONS: The empathic behavior of informal caregivers toward patients appeared to be related to lower levels of anxiety and depression in patients with end-stage ovarian cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Clinicians need to be aware that anxiety and depression in patients with ovarian cancer appear to be related to the patients' physical symptom experiences and the degree of empathic support the patients perceive from their informal caregivers. This has implications for clinical assessment of patients' anxiety and depression, physical symptoms, and available empathic social support.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".