Relationship status and quality of the partner relationship in parents of long‐term childhood cancer survivors: The Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study‐Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The intensive and long-lasting experience of childhood cancer is a tremendous stressor for the parental relationship. We aimed to (1) compare civil status and partner relationship of parents of long-term childhood cancer survivors with population-based comparisons, (2) identify cancer-related characteristics associated with not being married, and (3) evaluate the quality of the partner relationship. METHODS: We sent questionnaires to parents of survivors aged ≤16 years at diagnosis and ≥20 years at study. Population-based comparisons were derived from a random sample of the general population (≥1 child aged ≥20 years) and standardized by sociodemographic characteristics of survivor parents. We used logistic regression to identify cancer-related characteristics associated with not being married. The quality of the partner relationship was evaluated using the relationship-specific attachment scale for adults assessing the dimensions security (secure-fearful) and dependency (dependent-independent). RESULTS: A total of 784 parents (58.9% mothers) of 512 survivors (response rate: 44.0%) and 471 comparison parents completed the questionnaire. Parents of survivors were less often divorced/separated (9.0% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001) and more often in a partner relationship (89.9% vs 85.0%, P = 0.010) than comparisons. Not being married was not associated with cancer-related characteristics. Parents of survivors reported similar security (P = 0.444) but higher dependency (P = 0.032) within the partner relationship than comparisons. In both populations, fathers indicated higher security and dependency than mothers. CONCLUSIONS: Long after the diagnosis of cancer in their child, parents' relationship appears similar as in parents of the general population. The increased dependency reported by parents of survivors suggests that they managed their child's disease as a team.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".