Positive and negative meanings are simultaneously ascribed to colorectal cancer: Relationship to quality of life and psychosocial adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Experiencing cancer can give rise to existential concerns causing great distress, and consequently drive individuals to make sense of what cancer may mean to their lives. To date, meaning-based research in the context of cancer has largely focused on one possible outcome of this process, the emergence of positive meanings (e.g. post-traumatic growth). However, negative meanings may also be ascribed to cancer, simultaneously with positive meanings. This study focused on the nature of the co-existence of positive and negative meanings in a sample of individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer to find out whether negative meaning had an impact on quality of life and psychosocial adjustment above and beyond positive meaning. METHODS: Participants were given questionnaires measuring meaning-made, quality of life, and psychological distress. Semi structured interviews were conducted with a subgroup from the original sample. RESULTS: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that negative meaning-made (i.e. helplessness) was a significant predictor of poor quality of life and increased levels of depression/anxiety above and beyond positive meaning-made (i.e. life meaningfulness, acceptance, and perceived benefits). Correlational analyses and interview data revealed that negative meaning-made was mainly associated with physical and functional disability, while positive meaning-made was mostly related to emotional and psychological well-being. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Meanings of varying valence may simultaneously be ascribed to cancer as it impacts different life dimensions, and they may independently influence quality of life and psychosocial adjustment. The presence of positive meaning was not enough to prevent the detrimental effects of negative meaning on psychosocial adjustment and quality of life among individuals taking part in this study. Future attention to negative meaning is warranted, as it may be at least as important as positive meaning in predicting psychosocial adjustment and quality of life following a cancer diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".