A review of distress and its management in couples facing end‐of‐life cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review paper is to (1) provide an overview of the impact of cancer on the couple, (2) to identify potential outcomes for couple's interventions targeted specifically when one spouse is facing end of life, (3) to review and critique the empirical literature on psychosocial interventions for couple's facing end of life to date, and (4) to provide direction for research in this area. Based on our review, we found that there is clear evidence of significant distress arising from the impact of terminal illness on the marital relationship, which can result in greater suffering in the last months and weeks of life. Currently, there is a very small body of evidence on the effectiveness of couple interventions for those where one is in palliative care. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the impact of couple therapy adapted for couples facing the end of life, and to guide in providing information on the number of sessions and format required for this population. Outcomes, such as more effective communication, reduction in the experience of hopelessness, uncertainty, isolation, depression, anxiety, and more adaptive coping strategies should be considered.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it