Associations of daily partner responses with fatigue interference and relationship satisfaction in colorectal cancer patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the associations of daily partner responses toward patient's fatigue and well behavior with patient's fatigue interference and relationship satisfaction. The moderating effect of fatigue severity was also examined. METHOD: In an intensive longitudinal design, patients treated for colorectal cancer and their partners (n = 101 dyads) completed diaries for 14 days. Patients and partners reported on partner responses toward patient's fatigue behavior (e.g., resting), partner responses toward patient's well behavior (e.g., being active), and fatigue severity. Patients also indicated their fatigue interference and relationship satisfaction. Multilevel modeling was applied to assess within-person main and interaction effects. RESULTS: Patient-reported solicitous responses toward fatigue behavior and negative responses toward well behavior were associated with increases in fatigue interference, while facilitative responses toward well behavior were associated with a decrease in fatigue interference. The latter two associations were intensified on days patients reported relatively high fatigue. Solicitous responses toward fatigue behavior and facilitative responses toward well behavior were also associated with increases in relationship satisfaction. Punishing responses toward fatigue behavior were associated with a decrease in relationship satisfaction, especially on days patients reported higher fatigue. Models using partner reports largely confirmed the main effects of partner responses on fatigue interference and relationship satisfaction but failed to reproduce the moderating effect of fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Daily partner responses appear to impact patients' fatigue adjustment, especially on days patients experience high fatigue levels. Only facilitative responses toward well behavior seem to benefit both patients' fatigue interference and relationship satisfaction. Couple interventions should guide partners to encourage patients' well behavior and aid them to correctly estimate patients' current fatigue severity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".