Balancing give and take between patients and their spousal caregivers in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a demanding treatment. Spouses of HSCT patients assume caregiving responsibilities that can induce feelings of burden and disrupt relationship equity. On the basis of equity theory, we propose a conceptual framework examining the individual and dyadic experience of HSCT patients and their caregivers. The model includes feelings of inequity, patient self-perceived burden, caregiver burden, and distress. METHODS: The HSCT patients and their spousal caregivers were recruited prior to HSCT between March 2011 and September 2012. Each member of the dyad self-administered a questionnaire package. RESULTS: = 1.20, standardized root mean square residual = 0.048, comparative fit index = 0.99, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.96, and root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.05 (90% CI, 0.00-0.18). As hypothesized, pre-HSCT caregiver burden mediates the relationship between caregiver underbenefit and caregiver distress. However, patient self-perceived burden was not associated with patient distress; rather, patient perception of overbenefit was related to patient distress. In our modified model, the results demonstrate that patient overbenefit influenced caregiver burden; however, there was not a reciprocal influence, because caregiver variables did not affect patient variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed theoretical framework describes patients' and caregivers' individual experience of distress before HSCT but does not as clearly encompass the dyadic experience. Addressing perceived imbalances and providing psycho-education on role changes within HSCT dyads before transplantation may be a useful prehabilitation strategy for preventing distress.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".