Coping responses following breast cancer diagnosis predict psychological adjustment three years later
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between coping responses and psychological adjustment to a breast cancer diagnosis is well documented for time periods close to diagnosis. The purpose of the present study was to assess the long term association between these two variables. Fifty-five women completed measures of coping response, decisional control, frustration expression, and psychological adjustment within six months of receiving their breast cancer diagnosis. These women were contacted three years later and their psychological adjustment-as measured by the profile of mood states (POMS)-was reassessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The results showed that women who were depressed at time of treatment planning, and who responded to their cancer diagnosis with cognitive avoidance, i.e. acceptance/resignation, had significantly worse psychological adjustment three years later. Poor adjustment was significantly associated with cognitive avoidance and minimal use of approach-based coping responses. The findings suggest that women who respond to their breast cancer diagnosis with passive acceptance and resignation are at significant risk for poor long term psychological adjustment. Psychological interventions for these women should address cognitive avoidance, with the aim of fostering approach-based coping and positive well-being.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 it