Do men and their wives see it the same way? Congruence within couples during the first year of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the psychosocial adjustment congruence within couples through the first year of prostate cancer experience, and to explore the personal variables that could predict congruence within couples. METHOD: Eighty-one couples were interviewed at the time of diagnosis; 69 participated at 3 months and 61 at 12 months. Paired t-tests were used to examine dyadic congruence on seven domains of psychosocial adjustment. Repeated Measures ANOVAs were used to examine the congruence over time. Multiple regressions were used to determine whether mood disturbance, urinary and sexual bother, sense of coherence, and social support were predictors of congruence within couples on each of the adjustment domains. RESULTS: At time 1, couples had incongruent perceptions in 3 of 7 domains: health care, psychological, and social adjustment. Three months later, health care, psychological, and sexual domains showed incongruence within couples. One year after the diagnosis, there were incongruent perceptions only in sexual and psychological domains. There was little variation of the congruence within couples over time. Husbands and wives' mood disturbance, urinary and sexual bother, sense of coherence, and social support accounted for 25-63% of variance in couple congruence in the adjustment domains in the study periods. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that there is couple congruence. Domains in which incongruence was observed are important targets for clinical interventions. Greater attention needs to be directed to assisting couples to recognize the differences between their perceptions, especially the ones related to the sexual symptoms and psychological distress.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".