The Relationship Between Marital Quality and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery as Experienced by 3 Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Marital quality is a key factor in the lived experiences of couples in which one of the partners has undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Previous research about marital quality has been largely quantitative, and few studies have explored more holistically the marital couple and their experience of a major medical procedure. The purpose of this study was to understand the relationship between marital quality and the ongoing dynamic of a couple's experience of bypass surgery. METHODS: The study used the descriptive phenomenological-psychological method. The sample (N = 6) included 3 couples recruited from the Cardiac Wellness Institute of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, who were married, and one of the partners had undergone CABG surgery in the last 2 years. Two face-to-face interviews were conducted with each couple; the transcribed data were analyzed using the phenomenological method. All variables about the marital relationship that arose in the interviews were used as the data for analysis. RESULTS: A single structure was developed that describes the marital couple and their lived experience of this major medical procedure. The invariant meanings of the structure highlighted areas such as the impact of long-standing relational patterns and levels of marital satisfaction on a couple's postoperative adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that marital quality functioned as a major contributor (input) to couples' psychosocial recovery post-CABG surgery; conversely, bypass surgery highlighted existing levels of marital quality (output) and exacerbated weaknesses in the dyadic relationship.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".