MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893653329 · doi:10.1037/hea0000664

Associations of daily partner responses with fatigue interference and relationship satisfaction in colorectal cancer patients.

2018· article· en· W2893653329 on OpenAlexaff
Fabiola Müller, Marrit A. Tuinman, Ellen Stephenson, Ans Smink, Anita DeLongis, Mariët Hagedoorn

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKWF Kankerbestrijding
KeywordsMultilevel modelPsychologyPsychological interventionClinical psychologyPartner effectsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207