MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936590333 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsz067.828

0830 Effects of Intimacy and Adult Attachment on Sleep in Colorectal Cancer Patients: Preliminary Report

2019· article· en· W2936590333 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amanda Ting, Kaitlin Hahn, Youngmee Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeatrice Hunter Cancer Research InstituteCancer Research Institute
KeywordsSleep (system call)AnxietyPsychologyFeelingSleep qualitySleep disorderMultilevel modelYoung adultClinical psychologyInsomniaDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep disturbance is a prominent concern for cancer patients. Sleep is optimized when the individual feels emotionally safe, which is reflected in close relationships and intimacy. Cancer diagnosis threatens the close relationship between patients and their partner, which activates one's attachment internal working model and can be manifested in poor sleep. This study examined the degree to which intimacy and adult attachment is associated with sleep efficiency and sleep quality among adult colorectal cancer patients across 14 days. Colorectal cancer patients (n=24; 56 years old; 37% female) completed daily intimacy and sleep logs individually across 14 consecutive days. Three items regarding feeling cared for, validated, and understood by one's partner were used to measure intimacy. Sleep efficiency was assessed with the Consensus Sleep Diary, and a single item was used to measure sleep quality. Patients self-reported adult attachment orientations (MAQ: security, avoidance, and anxiety) around the time of diagnosis. Age, gender, and cancer stage were covariates. Patients reported fair sleep efficiency (M=91%) and sleep quality (M=3.64). Multilevel modeling was employed to separately predict patients' sleep efficiency (SE) and sleep quality (SQ) by intimacy with their partner that day and attachment orientation. Better SE was predicted by greater intimacy with the partner during that day, which was the case for older patients and greater attachment avoidance (Bs<.002, ps<.013). Overall, attachment avoidance was associated with poorer SQ (B=-1.524, p<.036). However, better SQ was predicted by greater intimacy with the partner during that day, which was the case for greater attachment avoidance (B=.425, p<.010), although not so for greater attachment anxiety (B=-.288, p<.044). Attachment security was not associated with any sleep outcome. Findings provide preliminary evidence that highlight the significance of intimacy and adult attachment orientation in sleep for cancer patients. Results suggest that sleep interventions be tailored to improve intimacy while considering individual differences in relational characteristics. Findings warrant further investigation of interpersonal factors and possible underlying biopsychosocial mechanisms that contribute to sleep disturbance for this vulnerable population. R01NR016838

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207