Couples’ catastrophizing and co-rumination: Dyadic diary study of patient fatigue after cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is a prevalent and long-lasting symptom among patients with cancer that is known to be worsened by patients' catastrophizing thoughts about their fatigue. Spouses are also burdened by patient fatigue, which may lead them to catastrophize as well. Based on the dyadic coping literature, this study hypothesized that patient and spouse catastrophizing translate into worse fatigue through co-rumination-couples' communications dwelling on the negative aspects of fatigue (H1). While maladaptive for fatigue, co-rumination also was expected to foster couple relationship satisfaction (H2). METHOD: = 101 dyads) completed daily diaries for 14 days. Patients reported on their momentary fatigue severity. Both couple members reported on their catastrophizing about the patients' fatigue, co-rumination, and their momentary relationship satisfaction. Multilevel structural equation modeling was applied to test within-person actor- and partner-effects between catastrophizing, co-rumination, and changes in fatigue (H1) and between co-rumination and changes in relationship satisfaction (H2). RESULTS: = 0.52, 95% credibility interval [CI] [0.09, 0.95]), as hypothesized, the effect of spouse catastrophizing on patient fatigue was mediated through co-rumination (indirect effect = 0.32, 95% CI [0.07, 0.60]). Unexpectedly, patient- and spouse-reported co-rumination were unrelated to both couple members' relationship satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Spouse catastrophizing contributes to patient fatigue severity through couples' ruminative communications. Co-rumination was not related to relationship satisfaction. Reducing patient and spouse catastrophizing and fostering adaptive dyadic communication in daily life could be targets for future interventions aiming to relieve fatigue in patients after completion of cancer treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".