Couples Who Get Closer After Breast Cancer: Frequency and Predictors in a Prospective Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although some couples report an improved relationship since coping with breast cancer together, little quantitative information exists about this phenomenon. We assessed extent to which both couple members report that breast cancer brought them closer and characteristics that predicted this. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study was based on all women with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic disease first treated during recruitment in four Quebec hospitals, in addition to their spouses. Participation was 87% among eligible patients and 91% among spouses of participating patients. Both couple partners were interviewed individually about quality of life at 2 weeks and 3 and 12 months after treatment start. At 12 months, each was asked whether the disease had brought them closer, distanced them, or had no effect. RESULTS: Overall, 42% of the 282 couples said breast cancer brought them closer, 6% had one or other partner reporting feeling distanced, and less than 1% of couples had both partners reporting feeling distanced. Characteristics assessed explained 31% of variance in the proportion of couples getting closer (P < .0001). After taking into account partners' prediagnosis characteristics and the woman's treatment, the spouse reporting the patient as confidant (P = .003), getting advice from her in the first 2 weeks about coping with breast cancer (P = .03), accompanying her to surgery (P = .057), the patient's reporting more affection from her spouse at 3 months since diagnosis (P = .003) predicted both partners saying the disease brought them closer. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer can be a growth experience for couples under certain conditions. This information may help reassure patients and their spouses confronting this disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".