Posttraumatic Growth, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Distress in Adolescent Survivors of Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only recently have researchers begun to empirically examine positive outcomes such as posttraumatic growth in adolescent cancer. This article examines associations between posttraumatic growth, coping strategies, and psychological distress in adolescent cancer survivors. Adolescents who finished cancer treatment 2 to 10 years prior (N = 31) completed self-report measures of posttraumatic growth, coping, symptomatology, and disease-related characteristics. Younger age at diagnosis and less use of avoidant coping strategies predicted lower levels of psychological distress. Adolescents' beliefs that they were more likely to relapse and the use of more acceptance coping strategies predicted higher levels of posttraumatic growth. Adolescent cancer survivors may be capable of experiencing posttraumatic growth. Those who believe they are more prone to relapse and use more acceptance coping strategies are likely to have higher levels of posttraumatic growth. As health care professionals encourage adolescent cancer survivors to use fewer avoidant coping strategies, they can also encourage survivors to use more acceptance coping strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".