A review of distress and its management in couples facing end‐of‐life cancer
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".