The experience of persistent pain and quality of life among women following treatment for breast cancer: An attachment perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate associations between attachment and the presence of persistent pain in women following treatment for breast cancer and to investigate the relationship between attachment, pain, and quality of life (QOL) in women with persistent pain. METHODS: Women (N = 335) previously diagnosed with primary non-metastatic breast cancer completed an online survey with measures of attachment, pain, QOL, demographics, and medical history. Variables were compared between women with (N = 128) and without (N = 207) persistent pain. For those reporting pain, regression analyses were conducted to investigate relationships between attachment, pain, and QOL. RESULTS: Higher attachment anxiety, but not attachment avoidance, was related to the presence of persistent pain. Among women with persistent pain, associations between attachment anxiety and avoidance and greater pain intensity were lost when pain catastrophizing was considered in analysis. Significant associations between attachment and diminished QOL and perceived effectiveness of pain management were identified in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings extend the available literature regarding associations between pain and attachment insecurity. In women with pain after breast cancer treatment, attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with negative pain and QOL outcomes. Further attention regarding the use of attachment-informed approaches in supporting women following breast cancer treatment is indicated.
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 | 0.001 | 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".