Common dyadic coping is indirectly related to dietary and exercise adherence via patient and partner diabetes efficacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using cross-sectional data from 117 married couples in which one member is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the current study sought to explore a possible indirect association between common dyadic coping and dietary and exercise adherence via the mechanism of patient and spouse reports of diabetes efficacy. Results from the structural equation model analysis indicated common dyadic coping was associated with higher levels of diabetes efficacy for both patients and spouses which, in turn, was then associated with better dietary and exercise adherence for the patient. This model proved a better fit to the data than three plausible alternative models. The bootstrap test of mediation revealed common dyadic coping was indirectly associated with dietary adherence via both patient and spouse diabetes efficacy, but spouse diabetes efficacy was the only mechanism linking common dyadic coping and exercise adherence. This study highlights the importance of exploring the indirect pathways through which general intimate relationship functioning might be associated with type 2 diabetes outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".