Relationship satisfaction in couples confronted with colorectal cancer: the interplay of past and current spousal support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on attribution theory, this study hypthesized that past spousal supportiveness may act as a moderator of the link between one partner's current support behavior and the other partner's relationship satisfaction. A sample of 88 patients with colorectal cancer and their partners completed questionnaires approximately 3 and 9 months after diagnosis. The data were analyzed employing dyadic data analytic approaches. In the short-term, spousal active engagement--which involved discussing feelings and engaging in joint problem solving--was positively associated with relationship satisfaction in patients as well as in partners, but only when past spousal support was relatively low. Spousal protective buffering--which involved hiding worries and fears and avoiding talking about the disease--was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction in patients, again only when past spousal support was relatively low. If past spousal support was high, participants rated the quality of their relationship relatively high, regardless of their partner's current support behavior. Over time, past spousal supportiveness was not found to mitigate the negative association between spousal protective buffering and relationship satisfaction. Overall, our results indicate that relationship satisfaction can be maintained if past spousal supportiveness is high even if the partner is currently not very responsive to the individual's needs, at least in the short-term.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".