The moderating effect of relationship quality on partner secondary traumatic stress among couples coping with cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A considerable amount of research has investigated symptoms of posttraumatic stress in cancer patients while the occurrence and correlates of secondary traumatic stress on patients' intimate partners has yet to be explored. This study examined the prevalence of secondary traumatic stress symptoms (Modified Secondary Trauma Questionnaire) in partners of cancer patients and evaluated the association of these symptoms with patients' posttraumatic stress symptoms (Impact of Event Scale-Revised). The study also investigated the moderation effect of relationship quality (Marital Satisfaction Inventory-Revised) on the association between patients' and partners' posttraumatic and secondary traumatic stress respectively. A heterogeneous sample of 90 patient-partner dyads was recruited through a provincial cancer agency. Multiple symptoms of secondary traumatic stress were reported by 23% of partners. These symptoms were experienced at a clinically significant level by 10% of all participating partners. Although patients' and partners' traumatic stress symptoms were correlated (r = .44, p < .001), only one dyad consisted of both a patient and a partner scoring clinically significant levels of traumatic stress symptoms. Therefore, of the 90 dyads in the study, 18% included at least one partner reporting clinically significant levels of traumatic stress. Relationship quality accounted for 11% of the variance in secondary traumatic stress, in addition to the 19% already accounted for by patients' posttraumatic stress. Relationship quality also exhibited buffering effects benefiting couples with higher quality relationships. Implications of results for future research and holistic health care models 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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".