The effects of attachment and outness on illness adjustment among gay men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has suggested that gay men facing prostate cancer may be particularly vulnerable to poor illness adjustment. Moreover, although attachment and greater disclosure of sexual orientation have been associated with health outcomes, their associations in this population have been largely unexamined. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether greater outness about one's sexual orientation significantly mediated the associations between anxious and avoidant attachment and illness intrusiveness among gay men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Ninety-two gay and bisexual men who had received a diagnosis of prostate cancer in the past 4 years were recruited for the present study. Self-report questionnaires assessed demographic and medical variables, attachment, outness level and comfort, and illness intrusiveness. Bootstrapping procedures were used to assess for mediation. RESULTS: Results suggested significant associations between anxious attachment, outness comfort, and illness intrusiveness. Less comfort with outness significantly mediated the association between greater anxious attachment and more illness intrusiveness. Avoidant attachment was not significantly associated with illness intrusiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the mediating role of the subjective experience of being an out gay man in the association between anxious attachment and illness intrusiveness. These results suggest that facilitating greater comfort with outness would be beneficial for illness adjustment among gay men with prostate cancer whom have more anxious attachment styles. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".