Transitions of Male Partners of Women With Breast Cancer: Hope, Guilt, and Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the types of transitions experienced by male spousal caregivers of women with breast cancer and the strategies used by male spouses to deal with these transitions and (b) examine factors related to their quality of life, including demographic variables, self-efficacy, caregiver guilt, hope, the quality of life of their partner with breast cancer, and transitions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, transformational, mixed-methods approach. SETTING: Participants' homes. SAMPLE: 105 dyads of male spouses and their female partners diagnosed with stages I-III breast cancer. METHODS: 600 surveys were mailed to women with breast cancer and their male partners. Significant variables were entered into a multivariate model. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLE: Male caregiver quality of life. FINDINGS: The quality of life of male spouse participants was positively influenced by hope (p < 0.01). It was negatively influenced by caregiver guilt scores (p < 0.01) and the method of dealing with their transitions by "doing what needs to be done" (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The male caregivers with higher quality-of-life scores reported higher hope and lower caregiver guilt scores. They reported lower quality-of-life scores if they dealt with transitions by "doing what needs to be done." IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Strategies to support male spouses of women with breast cancer should involve ways to foster hope, reduce feelings of guilt, and encourage male caregivers to engage more in supporting their spouses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".